Medieval Armies

If Medieval lords used their peasants for armies then who the fuck grew all the food while at war?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    muh dick

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If Medieval lords used their peasants for armies
    they didnt.
    medieval armies were mostly professional soldiers supported by what would now be considered middle class draftees, though the draftees were required to own weapons of war to bring when summoned.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >medieval armies were mostly professional soldiers supported by what would now be considered middle class draftees
      so how did feudal lords produce armies of 50k plus with just that?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone(non poor)was armed, also mercs lots and lots of mercs. Also lots of spears

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        only a king could raise a force like that, and most of it would have been full time professional soldiers and mercenaries (its where the term freelancer and brigand come from). but a force that large was very rarely used in one battle because the country side could not support 50,000 men in one area. forces of 10-20,000 were more common. in the 3rd crusade the combined christian forces only numbered 74,000. one of the largest battles of the medieval era was the battle of tanenberg where one side had 39,000 and the other 22,000 and that was a truly massive engagement for the time.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They didn't

          Cities and towns were full of people who didn't produce food and did make enough to own weapons. Also being a professional or semi professional fighter was a pretty solid life when not on campaign and a potential ticket to living very comfortably if you actually won a war ot sacked a few towns. The vast majority of the population didn't fight unless directly attacked.

          50k army would have been the biggest battles of the era supported by many nations. 5k was pretty much the biggest you could hope for.

          Army sizes didn't increase until the late Middle Ages when farming became more efficient. And it didn't break the 100k again until the invention of gunpowder and the introduction of New World cash crops.

          How come armies in medieval times are so small compared to ancient times? Seems like every notable Roman battle had 50k+ men no problem

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Romans could levy soldiers by force. Medieval armies were more difficult to levy because the balance of power was more spread out.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Romans didn’t ordinarily rely on conscription during the imperial period, by the time of the Principate they were a volunteer force that rewarded veterans with land grants in conquered regions. This fuelled an engine of imperial expansion as it became necessary to expand into new territories in order to satisfy the pensions of veterans.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its financial resources. Rome can demand a tax, and its highly urbanised and monetised society/economy can and will pay it. A king can demand a tax, and the city consuls will imprison the tax collectors, mayors will ignore it, villagers will murder the tax collector's replacements and an angry mob will literally rip apart the minister who dared suggest a tax. And if he manages to convince the nobles and towns/cities to get a tax of 1/10 of everyone's moveable property, most of which wasnt paid and didnt apply to many peasants as they didnt earn enough or whichever city decided it was immune from taxation, then this only comes up to enough to pay a few thousand soldiers to stay in the field for several months. And if the king doesnt go in person, for whatever reason, then most of the nobility refuses to go for more than their legal obligation of 40 days, and theyre the only heavy cavalry which exist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There was a collapse in logistical complexity during this period for a variety of reasons. As Rome’s military power declined, the remnants of the empire became insecure and fielding large military forced coordinated by a central bureaucracy wasn’t tenable anymore. Lines of communication were too unreliable, and much of the specialist knowledge needed to administer such organizations at scale was lost.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Is there any sources I could use to learn about the history of military logistics from classical to medieval periods?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Logistics of the Roman Army at War by Jonathan P Roth is a very good resources for Roman logistics, and you can pick up an idea of the complexity for medieval applications as well

                I don't have a good medieval warfare book to recommend, I haven't looked at that stuff for ages

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pic related is excellent and very accessible.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I believe there are primary texts written by Polybius, but I’ve never read them, this is all just stuff I’ve picked up over years of reading. Adrian Goldsworthy’s book “Pax Romana” is quite good if you have a passing interest in the subject, but it’s been ages since I read it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The most obvious, and I'm surprised no one yet has mentioned, is the Little Ice Age. The colder climate led to smaller crop yields which further exaggerated the demographic collapse that was already occurring within the Late Roman Empire due to the failure of Emperors to institute economic reforms that encouraged population growth.

            The shrinking population lead to smaller armies, which is why cavalry came to dominate European battlefields for centuries. As cavalry is much better suited for skirmishing and small-scale warfare than mass battles.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I forgot to bring that up. If I recall correctly it’s also been hypothesized that the changing climate was one of the catalysts for the Germanic migrations. A similar pattern occurred later during the time of the Vikings, around 1000 AD. I’m curious, have you read anything credible about the demographic collapse? I’ve heard the fertility rate declined and that mortality rates increased due to various plagues, but I wasn’t sure if that was ever credibly demonstrated.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's many different hypothesis that's been thrown around, to me most of them carry some merit. Not only did the Late Empire suffer from lower agricultural output due to the climate change, but they also faced plague, regular civil wars, hyperinflation, and the collapse of frontier to barbarian hordes. All of these created an environment that was not conducive to population growth.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the overriding factors was the fall of democratic participation, the bankrupt welfare state and the accumulation of wealth by the elite.
                Rome perished as all empires do, when the people no longer had a voice

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Idk honestly I don’t think it was weather. Contrary to popular belief, around 380-410 the empire was doing just fine. Syria and southern France for example, were producing at record highs and in general the empire was well off, and africa and Egypt were still producing massive surpluses.
                Succession in Rome sucked, and the late western Roman Empire especially, but that also wasn’t really a reason for anything to change population wise. Reason being, this happened every fucking time. Anytime an emperor or generalissimo died, there would be a massive decade long court power struggle and instability. It would recover, but you can see how it would leave rome vulnerable to outside invasion sometimes. Which ended up happening with the visigoths.
                I dont think population collapse was really a factor in Rome’s collapse, rather I think it was foreign invasion during times of political upheaval and granting these foreigners lands, culminating in the loss of africa, which basically ruined Rome and depopulated much of what was left of the empire. But that was after they were left with just Italy and some of illyria

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I dont think population collapse was really a factor in Rome’s collapse, rather I think it was foreign invasion during times of political upheaval and granting these foreigners lands, culminating in the loss of africa, which basically ruined Rome and depopulated much of what was left of the empire. But that was after they were left with just Italy and some of illyria

                This hypothesis doesn't hold up to recent scholarship on the behavior of the Germanic barbarians. While yes there was destruction, the Germanic tribes idealized Rome and aspired to heights of civilization that Rome presented. They did not want to destroy the Empire they wanted to rule it. Not only did they attempt to maintain the Roman infrastructure of the territories they settled, but they also sought political recognition and legitimacy from Roman officials.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well what you’re saying is true but it varied wildly. For example, 1/3 of all estates were seized in the Burgundian kingdom, the Frankish one only retained the Roman system in the south, north of Aquitaine it completely collapsed. Same with Britain. In Spain they attempted to keep the tax system, but it steadily went out of fashion for the next couple hundred years, to the point where the Arabs had to establish an entirely new tax system instead of just taking it over like they did in Egypt and Africa. As for the Ostrogoths, their takeover was more of a military coup than a barbarian invasion. But the lack of a grain dole definitely shrunk down a lot of Italian cities more than any disease or mini ice age did.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Aside from the other reasons mentioned, the numbers given in many historical chronicles are sometimes contested by the apparent archaeological evidence; numbers given for accounts of battle throughout often are ballpark figures at best and quite possibly exaggerations.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Remember we have census from many Roman periods. The Roman's wouldn't lie in internal tax docs. So we know they had the populations to support these mobilization. Just generally for many periods we have book keeping that supports the size of conflicts. Now was cape epconmus the largest naval battle in history I doubt. But was it half the size probably, was it a tenth the size not a chance.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because they were feudal backwaters with feeble state authority compared to the Romans.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            People have brought up many points, but the Biggest reason is that Rome had a centralized government with an advanced tax system in place, both of which were all but gone by the 800s. A strong central government lets you conscript many men from a much wider pool, and the tax system gives you the money needed to rally, train, and equip these men and all the logistics needed. The empire also had territories producing massive surpluses, such as africa and Egypt, which allowed the population to me much higher and much more urbanized than in medieval Europe. In medieval Europe, there was no central state, just varying degrees of feudal lords who swore oaths of fealty to each other, who had professional soldiers as part of their retinues. These professional soldiers would do most of the fighting. The grain/tax that the lords did collect went to these personal retainers, though some went to their liege/king, making him the richest most powerful lord. However, the kings authority was limited by the fact that beyond these oaths, the lands and their people belonged to the lords, not him. So the “central” government of the time couldn’t just conscript who they wanted, nor did they have enough money to train and equip them all, and it didn’t have the grain surpluses needed to maintain these large armies over long campaigns. Peasants would rarely fight, but if they were to be called upon, they would quickly eat up what supplies there were and lower the productivity of the lands since they no longer had as many hands.
            Tl;dr Rome Collected taxes and could afford to train and equip huge armies. Medieval lords/kings didn’t have a currency based tax system and couldn’t afford beyond their retinues

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Feudal states weren't centralized. At best as a ""state"" they were simply agreements by warlords with their own armies to pay tax in return for some collective protection spearheaded by a crown denoted as the "King".

            So you were fully reliant on your vassals to independently recruit, equip and field an army, then figure out the chain of command, and then conduct coordinated movements with what were essentially different armies (sometimes they didnt even speak the same language).

            Although a funny anecdote i heard about the time was that the paperwork involved in running an army back then was still just as immense. Which implies that they also had to bring along some civil servants who could read & write to manage some logistics.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Cont.

              In fact its best to see feudal society as deeply contractual, not just between vassals and kings but between peasants and their lords. I believe Harold Godwinson got into deep shit for failing to dismiss his peasant levy who were only obliged to serve 2 months in the army, so he was forced to dismiss them while waiting on the coast for William only to learn of the norweigan invasion up north.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Rome was a far more centralized state, dealing with surrounding tribes and getting attacked so often in their ancient history instilled within them a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else aside from the Greeks and some others to where they decided the only way they could have peace in Rome is if no one was around to disturb it. This is exaggerating a bit of course, but the idea is that Rome had a very different society and social system than Medieval kingdoms that were often either just petty kingdoms such as the Anglo Saxons or having to play an extreme case of fuck fuck games and politics lest the entire thing collapse such as the HRE. The entire thing, even in more powerful kingdoms, completely depended on the lords and nobles that made up the land for any sort of basic function. Kingdoms were less so of a state and more a series of contracts cooked up by opportunists that were constantly fucked with by other opportunists. Add in the Catholic church and what is already a complicated mess licking its wounds from Rome’s fall gets much, much worse. Rome had its fair share of problems but the way they went about things could not have possibly been more different if one tried until you get into the 400’s, and by then the Rome that people think of was practically dead and bisected anyways.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Roman Empire was just that: an entire fucking empire. At it's peak, Roman territory covered close to 5 million square kilometres. That's a lot of people and a lot of resources to draw from.

            On the other hand, medieval Europe was more just a collection of decentralized, small fiefdoms scattered about that sometimes coordinated together to raise a sizable army, but obviously organization between a bunch of fiefdoms was much more difficult than organizing under a single, centralized government.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Bingo.

              So, battle of Agincourt where *most* of France managed to get its shit together and get all its thousands of nobles and hundreds of houses, knights and captains to stop squabbling and be at the same place at the same time
              >15 000 men

              and the brits brought
              >8 000 men

              So about three legions worth of guys.

              It wouldn't take much for Rome, the aforementioned centralized state, to raise three legions from one big province and one backwater province and combined them with similar forces from other neighboring provinces (Spain (3 provinces), the Rhine (1 province), Austria (1 province)) and combine them all to make a fuckhuge army.
              >and that's if they just draw troops from Western Europe and not Italy proper, North Africa, the Balkans (based Dalmatia), Greece, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt.

              Biggest comparison would be the 1st Crusade where Western and Central Europe raised ~100 000.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah France brought about 25-30,000 and the *English* had about 15-16,000, this was after the French dispersed most of their host, and after the logistical difficulties of Edward moving an entirely mounted army to France (some 20,000 horses) and having to conscript VERY unwilling sailors from the cinque ports+pay others whenever they could be found, and having to split forces between keeping the norf safe (sc*tland), and garrisoning Aquitaine, and garrisoning eastern Ireland, all on VERY limited financial resources.

                Rome during the second punic war controlled nearly all of Italy, and could call on a population of at least 5 million (debatably up to 15 million), in a highly urbanised and compact landscape with easy sea access, a highly monetised economy, booming sea trade, and extensive state powers to demand taxes and goods. England and Wales had a population of 2 million at most, most of which were spread out and rural, it wasnt very urbanised, the economy wasnt very monetised, the state didnt have extensive powers to raise money, sea trade wasnt massive and the tonnage of ships was relatively low, and infrastructure was poor, and in order to fight the French, the channel has to be crossed. Furthermore every county north of the humber was exempt from levies or taxes for the war in France as they were dedicated to defending against Scotland. The end result is a small professional army which is entirely mounted and can be kept in the field indefinitely, instead of the hordes of tens of thousands of semi-professional soldiers, citizen-militia and tribal auxiliaries that Rome and Carthage liked to throw at one another.

                The French had a population of around 15 million and could raise an army of 80,000 men, but they couldnt pay for them or feed them for an extended period of time due to similar financial issues, and having so many men in once place wasnt usually neccessary, indeed it was more of a logistical hindrance.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They didn't

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cities and towns were full of people who didn't produce food and did make enough to own weapons. Also being a professional or semi professional fighter was a pretty solid life when not on campaign and a potential ticket to living very comfortably if you actually won a war ot sacked a few towns. The vast majority of the population didn't fight unless directly attacked.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        50k army would have been the biggest battles of the era supported by many nations. 5k was pretty much the biggest you could hope for.

        Army sizes didn't increase until the late Middle Ages when farming became more efficient. And it didn't break the 100k again until the invention of gunpowder and the introduction of New World cash crops.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They didn't

          only a king could raise a force like that, and most of it would have been full time professional soldiers and mercenaries (its where the term freelancer and brigand come from). but a force that large was very rarely used in one battle because the country side could not support 50,000 men in one area. forces of 10-20,000 were more common. in the 3rd crusade the combined christian forces only numbered 74,000. one of the largest battles of the medieval era was the battle of tanenberg where one side had 39,000 and the other 22,000 and that was a truly massive engagement for the time.

          lol. lmao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >chinese history

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/UiPTr4s.png

            >chinese history

            Chinese history is fake, just like their population numbers, economy, and building materials. Archaeology as a field of study is barely 250 years old, and for the majority of this time China has not been amicable or accessible to outsiders.

            There are only 500,000 Chinese in China. The entire country is the size of Wyoming. Chinese Occupied Government has been engaged in an elaborate ruse to fool and bamboozle you into thinking ChiComs have “history.”

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Memes aside, Chinese suffer from not questioning various aspects of their history, especially when it goes against Sina Numba Wan narrative, so you get asspull numbers like that. To use an analogue, when Teutons got btfo at Tannenberg/Grunwald butthurt German chroniclers wrote down numbers of up to 1000000 slavs fighting the Teutons because why would we ever lose unless it was against a gorillion nato supermutants. This got eventually cut down to 30.000-40.000 (vs around 30.000 Teutons) by modern historians doing actual research. The Chinese don't have modern historians and never do any research.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For a moment i thought what the fuck is the "sina numba wan" conflict/war and then i realized, and i just hate myself now. Very good post anon

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Oh no. It's retarded.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Chinese counted their logistics lines as soldiers the way modern armies do. When you cut the numbers down to the actual combatants they make more sense.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              moron, China is 10 million km^2 while Wyoming is only a quarter million. That's 40 times larger than Wyoming, and 6 times larger than Alaska.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            One thing to consider is chinese historians counted the camp followers/auxiliary into the number. So a 500k army would have at most 150k soldiers, the rest were their family, slaves and supports.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/FGe3rUW.jpg

              [...]
              [...]
              lol. lmao

              [...]
              Chinese history is fake, just like their population numbers, economy, and building materials. Archaeology as a field of study is barely 250 years old, and for the majority of this time China has not been amicable or accessible to outsiders.

              There are only 500,000 Chinese in China. The entire country is the size of Wyoming. Chinese Occupied Government has been engaged in an elaborate ruse to fool and bamboozle you into thinking ChiComs have “history.”

              >t. not putting things to context.

              The Pre-Imperial Warring States, the Qin, and the early Han Dynasty all practiced mass universal male conscription. One of the earliest civs to do so. So yes the amount of troops they can put out was huge. It was eventually abandoned in the Mid-Late Han Dynasty & onwards because not only was it expensive to arm & train huge numbers of people out of the state's own pocket, but it led to a lot of armed & trained civilians who can wreck the state's shit with their military experience.

              Ironically however the establishment of full professional standing armies in the Mid-Late Han period led to warlordism as professional troops became loyal to successful generals & officials instead of the Imperial State.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fake history thread? Also war elephants aren't real.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s antiquity no medieval. Antiquity was able to support larger field armies.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Antiquity was able to support larger field armies.

              >Army sizes didn't increase until the late Middle Ages when farming became more efficient.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, the medieval period was an exception.

                The reorganization of societies into a gorillion little holdings with a clusterfuck of political allegiances made mass mobilization almost impossible. The medieval world was not only stratified on a hierarchical social level but on an administrative and jurisdictional level, kings were incredibly weak and required the consent of their subjects to get anything done, including drafting their subjects, levying taxes, or employing any of the kingdoms' resources.

                Before this you had a far more authoritarian, centralized power in antiquity, Greek tyrants and Roman emperors could effectively control every aspect of society, but it was also a far more open society as well, with systems of patronage and sponsorship superseeding slavery and being more or less proto corporations. Not being tied to land and far greater urban development led to huge population surplus that could be turned into massive armies and industry.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          5k for a lord? Yes. 5k for a major king? No.

          [...]
          [...]
          [...]
          How come armies in medieval times are so small compared to ancient times? Seems like every notable Roman battle had 50k+ men no problem

          Mostly lack of money and lack of permanent logistical body+difficulty thereof.
          Romans had a much more monetised economy, a higher population density and a different relationship between the state and the people. The Roman state demanded money and could get it relatively easily, feudal societies didnt work like that, you had to negotiate for taxes and these were usually very grudgingly given, and different regions and cities might have privileges exempting them. The nobility didnt usually pay direct tax but did pay various sales taxes, taxes on all of their moveable goods, inheritance taxes, fees for marrying and remarrying, and were expected to fight along with a retinue, and ransom themselves if captured. The townsmen and peasants usually violently resisted any kind of tax, so it was a matter of negotiation. The financial resources avaliable to a king werent equal to Rome, and even if they were, the logistical burden of feeding so many men was huge. The roads arent what they were, there arent supply depots everywhere, sea-trade isnt yet booming and ubiquitous to the same extent again (and you have to afford to pay sailors to move your food), food production isnt similar to Roman times until like the 14th.c. Furthermore, while superior to many times their number in infantry, Knights were a logistical nightmare; each had at least 5 horses and 2 servants (a squire and a gros-varlet, one or both of which would usually fight, and they'd each have their own horse), so 1 knight=7 horses, 2,000 knights means you have 6,000 men and 14,000 horses, 5,000 knights means you have 15,000 men and 35,000 horses. After a point this is a logistical challenge.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            (cont)
            Medeival sources often dont bother counting the infantry levies and dont bother counting the servants, so an army which is described as having 2,000 knights and 3,000 serjeants, really means an army of 6,000 cavalry, 3,000 serjeants and some 10,000 infantry levies. The largest explicitly stated army is either Edward III's army at the siege of Calais (70-80,000), or the army of John II which was dispersed before Crécy (allegedly 25,000 men-at-arms, which means at least 75,000 men-maybe up to 100,000). These werent sustainable for extended periods of time though due to both finance and the logistical burden. The usual army size is 7,000-30,000, sometimes smaller detachments are around 300 or 2,000. Usually entirely professional, levies get added on as needed and convenient.

            Now, armies did get to huge sizes but they werent professional. Early Rome relied on citizen-militias, the medieval italian city-states could field similar armies, and indeed many kingdoms could, but they couldnt keep them in the field indefinitely and couldnt take them too far away. Medieval armies could be deployed for years, because fortifications are much more common and more advanced.
            The flemish urban militia managed to put together 100,000 men, of which they sent 50,000 to aid Edward's army of 30,000 men at calais. You could get big numbers, they just werent as useful as smaller more professional armies

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They didn't, look battle of grunwald, almost half of Europe was in it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        KeK this isn't the classical period. Crecy, and agincourt had like 20k ish counting both sides. The dark ages were real, it wasn't until the Renaissance that Europe could support armies as large as the Roman's. (not to say medeivel armies hadn't became far superior to Roman ones of the manipular system.)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They didn't, history is embellished by the victors.

        It's funny to think about though, that most of those men weren't Profesional soldiers so it was just a bunch of armed peasants getting throw into battle. Must've been a shit show.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody. That is why most campaigns took place between harvests. Held true from tribal warfare through Romans* up to maybe the Italian Renaissance period, when true "standing armies" became more widespread.

      *though the Romans had professional armies, especially post-Marian reforms. I can't recall how prevalent seasonal militia were in the Imperial period.

      No.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, retard. Sending peasants with no arms or training to fight was utterly fucking pointless and everyone knew it. You literally have known accounts in the English and scots- poor backwaters that never had enough soldiers- turning people away for having sufficient equipment.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, dipshit. Most able-bodied peasants DID have arms and training to fight, AND were needed to bring in the harvest. Timing a campaign between harvests was standard fucking practice and the effects of casualties on home affairs was common knowledge.

          >In har’st, at the shearing, nae youths now are jeering,
          >Bandsters are lyart, and runkled, and gray;
          >At fair or at preaching, nae wooing nae fleeching-
          >The Flowers of the Forest are a’ wede away.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, retard. Sending peasants with no arms or training to fight was utterly fucking pointless and everyone knew it. You literally have known accounts in the English and scots- poor backwaters that never had enough soldiers- turning people away for having sufficient equipment.

            you're both retards

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also, lets not forget that a bunch of woman, children and older people could easily maintain a farm between harvest seasons.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even in the American Revolution they had a bunch of soldiers leaving to sow their crops, Washington had to bribe his troops to re-enlist for another season after Ticonderoga

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >medieval armies were mostly professional soldiers supported by what would now be considered middle class draftees
      "medieval armies" covers the military record of a whole continent across 1000 years.
      For Italian and upper German militaries during the late Middle ages? Sure.
      For French and English armies during the low middle ages? Not at all. The fyrd system of Wessex was based on a network of peasant militias.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've actually seen some stuff suggesting that fyrdmen, by the end of the system, were far closer to professional than anyone realized. Easier to pool resources and consistently send the same guy(s) with good equipment over and over, than to deal with the disruption of actual conscription. Then again, I may be thinking of thegns, not the fyrd.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In addition to what this anon said, it was very likely that the man sent by the 5-hide system was indeed a professional, or semi-professional. He was expected to be able to ride to battle, very few of the Anglo-Saxons were depicted with any equipment different from the Normans in the Bayeux tapestry, and the commutation rate of the fyrd was not a punitive amount intended for punishment, but merely the wages of the man that would had been sent anyway. It seems that a general draft would had been done only locally.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and this is better for literally everyone. The farmers aren't getting disrupted or killed, the guy goin to war is paid and his village will handle his home shit, and the king is getting better armed and trained soldiers who are less likely to vanish.

            People need to remember that MUH FYRD, MUH LONGBOW, MUH COMMON LEVY DEFENDING INGERLAND was literally used as ww1 propaganda to justify the draft

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It should be noted that what was true in 1066 was not necessarily true in other periods. For example, if a scribe's notes in the margins of a copy of the Burghal Hidage are to be taken as fact and not just calculations for the sake of it, then 1 man per hide was expected to man the walls of Alfred the Great's burghs. These men were unlikely to be professionals due to the numbers involved, but were no doubt expected to defend the walls and sally out to attack any nearby enemy forces. During the Hundred Year's War, when England itself was threatened by Scotland and seaborne raids/invasions, every able men was expected to answer the local summons, a great and presumably intended benefit of mandating archery training for everyone that went beyond merely expanding the pool of potentially professional manpower.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, I don't disagree - if attacked, you're getting called up to defend the local area. That said, you weren't getting brought to France, or anywhere else where the crown had to deal with feeding your ass, unless you were better than the common dickheads at the butts. And the same is true pretty much everywhere, really. Most people aren't worth bringing to campaign. Too expensive.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what is a levy

      • 4 weeks ago
        not him but

        A thing you don't understand.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Neither do you apparently

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then elaborate.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A levy determined which peasants would serve in the military. Not all peasants were recruited just the ones who had say an extra son who survived

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly you could view a levy as a semi professional peasant militia, like a national guard, rather than just conscripting every peasant in the area

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'll refer you to his post:
                >draftees

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Eh a levy was more like how the national guard operates

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >like how the national guard operates
                >but mandatory
                >but not a draft
                It's one thing to be Baron Buttfondle and pledge your knights and MAAs, who have in turn pledged fealty to you, for future conflicts. It's entirely another to be a yeoman and told you're going to war.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Right but you’re a yeoman who’s expected to regularly train and to bear arms and armor in case he’s called to war. You’re right in that it’s more of a draft thing in the sense that you’re called to duty, but these aren’t just bumble fuck peasants with pitchforks, they’re often semi professional urban militias, and more rarely rural militias

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's pretty much the original guy's point.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >draftees were required to own weapons of war
      2A is eternal, never let the asshat euro stepchildren or traitorous leftoids try to take this history from you

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

    Japanese society was very similar to medieval europe, with armies made out of warrior nobility samurai supported by peasant levies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      samurai did not become a distinct hereditary class until the tokugawa shogunate

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If Medieval lords used their peasants for armies then who the fuck grew all the food while at war?
    medieval armies mostly relied on militia rather than peasant levies

    ancient greeks, however, simply couldnt wage war for most of the year to preserve their food supply

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Peasants weren't actually used very much for most of medieval times in most countries. They could be drawn upon, but when they were they were mostly used for very brief campaigns, or even single major battles. They would typically be dismissed before the labor intensive times of harvest, because war wasn't conducted as heavily during harvest season. In part for that very reason. Usually, a higher number of much better equipped and motivated soldiers could be drawn upon from regular citizens in the cities. Many nations relied heavily on professional mercenaries. And depending on the nation and time period, you could be looking at huge numbers of knights, anyway. Not enough to sustain an entire army, but enough to make up a healthy core of experienced cavalry and heavy infantry.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You usually weren't obligated to send that many of your peasants. Plus, if you really couldn't afford to send any, you could just hire a retinue of outside contractors to fill your quota, basically.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The whole idea of women not working was relatively recent in history. In times of need when peasantry would actually be levied, women and children tended the fields.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >women and children
      had their own farm duties as well, they could not fill in forever for men

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      How come armies in medieval times are so small compared to ancient times? Seems like every notable Roman battle had 50k+ men no problem

      >notable Roman battle
      keyword, anon; they were notable in part because of the large scale

      most of the time that we're not talking about existential threats, the Roman empire had something like 10 legions bouncing around. that's 40 to 60,000 troops, garrisoned or doing low-intensity ops across the empire from Jerusalem to London.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >that's 40 to 60,000 troops, garrisoned or doing low-intensity ops across the empire from Jerusalem to London.
        Isn't that by itself a pretty fucking big deal? That they can have 50k troops on hand at any time when Medieval states couldn't muster that in total if they tried?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Medieval states were fighting over far smaller territories. Rome was building a garrison empire. It’s the difference between a gang war in Baltimore versus the invasion of Afghanistan.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Isn't that by itself a pretty fucking big deal?
          Both yes and no; yes, it's a big fucking deal that the Romans had that large a standing army; no, in that this is ~50k across the entire territory bounded by Spain, North Africa, Israel, Italy, and Belgium. That's a lot of land, and a lot of people. They could certainly raise at least five or ten times as much if they wanted. (Assuming all the inhabitants are trustworthy...)

          https://i.imgur.com/3Aa1xgk.jpg

          Pic related is excellent and very accessible.

          Thanks

          Medieval states were fighting over far smaller territories. Rome was building a garrison empire. It’s the difference between a gang war in Baltimore versus the invasion of Afghanistan.

          >Medieval states were fighting over far smaller territories
          More accurately, medieval states didn't quite have the access to manpower the Romans enjoyed.

          Aside from the other reasons mentioned, the numbers given in many historical chronicles are sometimes contested by the apparent archaeological evidence; numbers given for accounts of battle throughout often are ballpark figures at best and quite possibly exaggerations.

          >numbers given for accounts of battle throughout often are ballpark figures at best and quite possibly exaggerations
          While true, that doesn't mean that apparently large numbers should summarily be dismissed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >~50k across the entire territory bounded by Spain, North Africa, Israel, Italy, and Belgium.
            Augustus reduced the number of legions from 60-80 at the end of the civil war(s) to 30 (-3 after 9 AD). That number remained constant for quite a while but is still roughly 150k legionaries and possibly the same number again in auxilia. The entire tax revenue of Egypt was needed to finance it, around 1/4th of total imperial revenue at least.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >30
              Fuck me, you're right. I'm growing old...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also:
            >entire territory bounded by Spain, North Africa, Israel, Italy, and Belgium
            North Africa had like one legion for multiple provinces, while the Rhine and Danube had 12-16 (8 on the Rhine, later 4, with the number on the Danube steadily increasing) and Italy didn't have any regular legions.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anyone have any book recommendations on how the romans were able to raise so much revenue and soldiers in the big picture compared to the medieval period? It seems to me a lot of the strength of historic states came from their institutions

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          War loot was a big contribution. Whenever a successful general returned home the winnings of his forces were proudly displayed and counted.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >book recommendations
          Find a survey of Gibbons. The original books will take you a month of sundays read, but books like this https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Empire-Condensed-Modern-Reading/dp/B0024L0MCO
          are a good start as is this essay collection
          https://www.amazon.com/Companion-Roman-Empire-David-Potter/dp/1405199180
          and you should also read Vegetius
          >inb4 over 9000
          his period books about he topic are very good and there are good translations for free. He was probably the first true military scientist

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gibbons is outdated and vegetius is... really misleading if you don't know when to ignore him.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Thanks Evan. Now go back to your Antifa HQ.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He is right about gibbons, he is a little outdated and paints it as a constant terminal decline, when in reality it was more of a SHTF scenario drawn out over 60 years. Which isn’t immediate, but it’s only one generation

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >He is right about gibbons, he is a little outdated and paints it as a constant terminal decline, when in reality it was more of a SHTF scenario drawn out over 60 years. Which isn’t immediate, but it’s only one generation
                Any good books or videos about this?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I would personally recommend the fall of the Roman Empire by Peter heather, and framing the early Middle Ages by Christ wickham, though that one’s more modern

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Gibbons
            Anon that shit is extremely dated. If anything it serves to illustrate the state of early contemporary historiography, but if you want to learn about the Rome it's pretty much useless.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >book recommendations
              Find a survey of Gibbons. The original books will take you a month of sundays read, but books like this https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Empire-Condensed-Modern-Reading/dp/B0024L0MCO
              are a good start as is this essay collection
              https://www.amazon.com/Companion-Roman-Empire-David-Potter/dp/1405199180
              and you should also read Vegetius
              >inb4 over 9000
              his period books about he topic are very good and there are good translations for free. He was probably the first true military scientist

              Learn to read around his commentary. For the period he was writing in he was astonishingly accurate on his facts, and most of the criticism focuses on his socio-historical analysis

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gibbons gets the basics nailed down but a lot else wrong.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          civilization builders, the romans could squeeze more people into a city and then tax and conscript them. Even the chinese could not reach roman levels of city density, It was not until the industrial revolution that europeans could get roman levels of population density back

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I would say that massive urban population was due to having extremely surpluses in africa and Egypt, on top of really productive regions like hispania, gaul, and syria

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Rome would have starved without the grain subsidies, the only way to transport large amounts of grain in any efficient manner is by boat. And the italian countryside could not grow enough to feed rome at all. Combine with aquaducts and public baths, to keep disease down.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly, those grain subsidies from Africa and Egypt coupled with the revenue from the monetary tax system made it possible to pay for all that. Monetary tax systems are OP

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Levy troops, particularly by that time, are notoriously unreliable. You'd only use them when you were truly desperate and they were available.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Young children, womyn and the elderly would still carry on living as they did and would grow grain as usual. They also had in reserve grains that had been stockpiled years in advance for the months in active war so they didn't need to maintain a same level of output.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s also notable that there are hypothesized crop shortages that occurred around the time of the Trojan War that some historians have (perhaps dubiously) attributed to the men being abroad.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I am not hearing any reference to slave workers here? They were the ones tilling the earth on the big farms, and the rich guys owning them certainly didn't go off to war or send their slavemasters.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Big farms
          Didn't really exist in the way you're thinking of until after the second punic war. Most landowners had a relatively modest amount of land and needed to buy physically present at the harvest. Even comparatively rich men weren't all that rich. Only a tiny portion of the population had fuck off huge farms with massive numbers of slaves.

          Even then, you need to get the war done and get home before the slaves get ideas.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's crazy to think the collapse of the romans was a real SHTF situation where so much of western society was set back to living in what was essentially a rust server

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ngl, that boy holding the tray is kinda cute

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fag

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Roman (Degenerate) hands typed this post.

        i didnt mean that in a sexual way
        more like how a puppy is cute or smthg

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fag

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Roman (Degenerate) hands typed this post.

        Shota pages were hugely popular throughout Christendom.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Boys were pages so they could be trained to be men you pervert garden gnome sicko.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Roman (Degenerate) hands typed this post.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    women and children.
    people used to make lots of children just to have more working hands in the field.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True, but also because they had a habit of dying before the age of eight.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If Medieval lords used their peasants for armies

    And you've answered your own question. They didnt.
    Even in the pre-norman anglo-saxon perod, the armies were paid professionals.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They weren’t constantly at war not all of the population would be levied at the same time.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    armies campaigned during the summer, which is between the plowing season (spring) and the harvest season (fall).

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    large families, not all men of the family went

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If OP could ever be bothered to research anything then who would eternally flood the catalog with dumb basic threads?

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who had the best and worst medieval army?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >best
      France
      >worst
      Probably Russia

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >France
        >Got BTFO multiple times by an island 1/8th it's size who used the magic of sticks

        France didn't actually become good until the rennaisance period and it could actually leverage it's huge number of retarded peasants into a useful force.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well France overall was better than England, though in those battles you can see how the English leveraged their forces and the terrain to beat the odds. Though the French in the Middle Ages were overall more influential and more powerful, so his statement is true

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They were more powerful
            >But they got their asses kicked a lot by a much smaller nation to the point of actually losing their throne, but the much smaller nation simply didn't have the troops to assert control
            >But they were much more powerful

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah basically, it’s kinda like a Punic wars scenario. They lost a lot, more than the English, but then won it all in the end and almost entirely removed the English from the continent

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah.... after the medieval period. During the renaissance when due to improved technology (pike and shot), having a shitload of peasants actually became militarily useful.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No they were pretty powerful, arguably the most powerful medieval realm. Their lands were vast and they could project their power further than even the byzantines. The crusades themselves were mainly headed by the French and their norman vassals, and this would continue throughout the entire age. Losing battles and campaigns in a drawn out succession war with your neighbor doesn’t change that

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So because they lost battles, they won?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Think of it as the British giving them a good thrashing but that ultimately didn’t change anything really

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                pyrrhus won battles and lost

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The crusades themselves
                routinely bankrupted even major nobility and put the entire country into desperate poverty. There's a reason they only took place every generation or two generations, the Yurops had to rebuild their destroyed states. What is impressive, is that unlike the dark ages, the Crusaders retained the knowledge gained and steadily improved technology, tactics and mobilization every time. It's also when the medieval system of guilds began to emerge, and guess who ere the records keepers and repository of martial knowledge? The Templars. that whole secret knowledge shit is REAL, and that's why they got put down, they had become a sufficiently large fighting force with technology unrivaled in the western world at the time.
                >Saladin was a motherfucker anyway kek

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Crusades didn't bankrupt countries, 11th 13th centuries is one of the biggest phase of economix expansion in the history of Europe.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The Crusades didn't bankrupt countries
                I said it bankrupted nobility. It also led to a centureis long game of musical chairs at the French court and elsewhere over which marquis or baronet could horn in and get higher honors.
                That's what a lot of that migrating nobility around the continent was about, with Dutchmen marrying Spaniards and Austrians nabbing rich slavic comtesses and shit.
                Europe was at its most fertile due to the medieval warming event, but it literally took a full generation or more to grow enough conscripts and gear to go after it again

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The Crusades didn't bankrupt countries
                I said it bankrupted nobility. It also led to a centureis long game of musical chairs at the French court and elsewhere over which marquis or baronet could horn in and get higher honors.
                That's what a lot of that migrating nobility around the continent was about, with Dutchmen marrying Spaniards and Austrians nabbing rich slavic comtesses and shit.
                Europe was at its most fertile due to the medieval warming event, but it literally took a full generation or more to grow enough conscripts and gear to go after it again

                The introduction of the heavy plow into europe in this period had profound effects on growth.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >nation

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Kinda easy when burgundy’s on your side

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/0KTs3oC.png

                >smaller nation
                The Angevine dynasty was not a small nation, nor a nation at all. England was just one part of it.

                Yes, all those famous Burgundian longbowmen at Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers. I remember reading about them.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Longbowmen's impact is massively overblown. The real difference was in the comandment, the Angevine were making war rationally while the Capetians were stuck in a chivalric mode of action.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Longbowmen's impact is massively overblown.
                Here comes the excuses
                >It was le mud!
                >It was le Contable being shit!
                >The slope, it was le slope!
                >The Genovese , le perfide Genovese fucked us (this is the most revolting cope btw, those poor bastard crossbowmen were shafted good and hard by the French)
                >The perfidious albion used total war tactics that somehow caused us to lose a tactical battle
                French historians will say absolutely anything, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting that the longbow was a superb weapon system, because then they'd have to admit that the English system of making war was just better, that treating your peasants as yeomen rather than as scum was better and delivered better troops.
                And yet, to find out how effective longbowmen actually were, you just have to look at what the actual french knights of the time thought about them. They hated the longbows so much that they were prepared to torture and murder any longbowman they came across. If they were as ineffective as you dumb morons claim, why do that?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>It was le mud!
                >>It was le Contable being shit!
                >>The slope, it was le slope!
                >>The Genovese , le perfide Genovese fucked us (this is the most revolting cope btw, those poor bastard crossbowmen were shafted good and hard by the French)
                >>The perfidious albion used total war tactics that somehow caused us to lose a tactical battle
                Yes it was all that. Take any of the three victories and put away the longbowmen, it still works. Every time all the Angevines do was to entrench themselves on an advantageous situation and wait for the french knights to charge.
                >And yet, to find out how effective longbowmen actually were, you just have to look at what the actual french knights of the time thought about them. They hated the longbows so much that they were prepared to torture and murder any longbowman they came across. If they were as ineffective as you dumb morons claim, why do that?
                That's what was waiting any non-noble captured on battle, longbowman or not.
                Longbow was just efficient at what we wall suppressing fire and had the advantage to work in wet weather. Beyond that it's nowhere near the medieval sniper Brits make it to be, it barely could pierce armour under 100 meters. And whatever advantage it had was ultimately countered by artillery, the Angevines having completely the development of it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Absolutely anything but the longbows!
                >I'm so seething and buttblasted I won't even refer to them as English, despite the fact that both sides saw it that way!
                These have gotta be brown fingers typing this. No one normal is this butt blasted by England.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Midwit 21st century autist take : iT BaRely CouLDd piErCe aRmOUr undEr 100 mEtErs
                >Actual french knight who was there at Crecy take : "The English continued shooting as vigorously and quickly as before. Some of their arrows fell among the horsemen, who were sumptuously equipped, and, killing and wounding many, made them caper and fall among the Genoese, so that they were in such confusion they could never rally again." - Jean Froissart, The Battle of Crecy (1346)

                You fell for the youtube memes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Froissart was eleven at that time and not even a knight dummy.
                Meanwhile, when actual scientists test the british medieval AWP:
                >A 2006 test was made by Matheus Bane using a 75 lbf (330 N) draw (at 28 in (71 cm)) bow, shooting at 10 yards (9.1 m); according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a 110 lbf (490 N) bow at 250 yards (230 m).[35] Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary gambeson (padded jacket) armour, a 905 grain needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over 3.5 inches (89 mm). (gambeson armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.) Against "high quality riveted maille", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated 2.8 in (71 mm). Against a coat of plates, the needle bodkin achieved 0.3 in (7.6 mm) penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3 in of deformation of the metal. Results against plate armour of "minimum thickness" (0.047 in (1.2 mm)) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated to a shallow depth, the other arrows not at all. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.
                >Other modern tests described by Bane include those by Williams (which concluded that longbows could not penetrate mail, but in Bane's view did not use a realistic arrow tip), Robert Hardy's tests (which achieved broadly similar results to Bane), and a Primitive Archer test which demonstrated that a longbow could penetrate a plate armour breastplate. However, the Primitive Archer test used a 160 lbf (710 N) longbow at very short range, generating 160 joules (vs. 73 for Bane and 80 for Williams), so probably not representative of battles of the time.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Someone's been reading wikipedia. Nobody knows when Froissart was born, 1337 is a guess. Recent research indicates though that it's quite wrong, and he was much older than originally thought.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anyway he wasn't at Crécy.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But he would have spoken to people who were there when he wrote his chronicle. It's a primary source. Anyway, Le Bel confirms what he says and Le Bel definitely was there.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who won the war again? Because it wasn’t England

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can't follow a debate can you? The question isn't who eventually won. It was who was stronger during the medieval period. French won later on during the early renaissance period because pike and shot enabled them to leverage their huge peasant population.
                But during the medieval period, they got their shit pushed in by an island with a population like a tenth of theirs.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Clearly France. They literally beat the shit out of the English

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Try to keep up.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                During the medieval period that island became basically a french colony, hence why it was dragged in a french dynastic conflict.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Looks at what the french thought
                We literally have accounts of drugs throwing their arms open to expose their chests in mockery of the men shooting at them. They also rode down the longbowmen with contemptuous ease at Patay.

                >Muh murder
                Literally everyone who got captured and found to not be worth a random was killed, by everyone in the period. Longbowman or not doesn't factor in.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They couldn't penetrate the armour!
                Meanwhile, another primary source from Agincourt :
                >"When the French observed the English thus advance, they drew up each under his banner, with his helmet on his head: they were, at the same time, admonished by the constable, and others of the princes, to confess their sins with sincere contrition and to fight boldly against the enemy. The English loudly sounded their trumpets as they approached, and the French stooped to prevent the arrows hitting them on the visors of their helmets; thus the distance was now but small between the two armies, although the French had retired some paces. Before, however, the general attack commenced, numbers of the French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmen. At length the English gained on them so much, and were so close, that excepting the front line, and such as had shortened their lances, the enemy could not raise their hands against them. The division under sir Clugnet de Brabant, of eight hundred men-at-arms, who were intended to break through the English archers, were reduced to seven score, who vainly attempted it. True it is, that sir William de Saveuses, who had been also ordered on this service, quitted his troop, thinking they would follow him, to attack the English, but he was shot dead from off his horse." -Enguerrand de Monstrelet (d.1453)

                I think I'll take the primary sources over your seething, cope and youtube memes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Literally nothing in that passage discussed piercing armor. Because that isn't what's happening. What's happening is people being shot in the feet, elbows, face, gut- all areas that aren't guaranteed coverage by plates. The face is especially vulnerable, I've actually BEEN shot at by archers lobbing shit at me in a high arc, and caught several hits to my face and eyes. Plate has gaps, shoot enough and you'll find them.

                And the cavalry force was "reduced" because of horses being shot. The actual men were fine, the guy leading it, from the front, wasn't even fucking wounded.

                The English won because the frogs had to move through heavy mud with visors down, which is tiring as shit, bunched up so hard they could raise their weapons or do any footwork, which naked you easy as fuck to kill, and the longbowmen, on running out of arrows, charged their flanks.

                Fairy easy to lose when you're exhausted, surrounded, and can't fucking move. The same shit happened to the Romans at Trasimene and cannae. Compact a formation enough and it becomes helpless.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Burgundy was allied to England for a majority of the wars

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >smaller nation
              The Angevine dynasty was not a small nation, nor a nation at all. England was just one part of it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >btfo said island all the way back to their shithole

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends on the period, the middle ages are long.
      >best
      In the low middle ages it was the Romans and later Greeks, also the Khazars if you count them.
      In the high middle ages definitely the French (including the Normans).
      For the late middle ages it's more complicated, I'd say it was the HRE when the emperor was strong, but otherwise it was either France of England depending on the phase of the Hundred Years war.
      >worst
      For the low middle ages probably the Anglo-Saxons.
      For the high middle ages, the Greeks.
      For the late middle ages, the Baltic tribes (Lithuanians aside), if you count them. They basically got genocided by small group of German knights and the few that survived did so only by abandoning their religions (the last pagans of Europe) and becoming a de facto vassal of Poland.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At the same time? Has to be the French during the Hundred Years War. They undoubtedly had the most impressively large numbers of knights of any European power, enough to crush all of Europe, but also were also absolute retards. Let's ignore those famous three battles where they lost against the English. Instead, let's talk about the battle of Nicopolis, where true to form, the French knights ignored all advice, renounced all tactics, charged into a bunch of stakes, and eventually got routed, destroying a crusade through sheer stupidity.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >massive amounts of food stockpiled
    >only need half as much food
    >other half of population is at war raping your neighbor and eating their food
    duh...

  20. 4 weeks ago
    anon

    mabe they planted the food, then went to war while it grew

Your email address will not be published.