Real Historians Answer Medieval Warfare Questions

Asked by/u/klb0903:

In the movies, we see archers firing arrow after arrow into an army. How accurate is this in reality? Do they run out of arrows after just a few minutes? What happens when archers run out during a siege? How well can arrows be stored to stop shortages?

I do not have a specific time period. I just need any time when archers were still used. Maybe the time of the English Longbowman.

Answered by /u/backgrinder:

You are right; archers can run out of arrows in minutes of battle. An archer must be able to fire ten arrows per minute. Good archers fire much faster.ten arrows in a minuteGood archers fire much quicker. Arrows were carried in sheaves of 24.sheaves of 24, archers carried two sheaves and a few spares. A typical English Longbowman from Henry V's time could use all their ammunition in four to eight minutes of steady firing. Realistically, they would not fire at maximum speed for four to eight minutes often, but they still needed plenty of arrows to fight a battle lasting hours.

The arrows present difficulty. They use multiple pieces, each needing its own supply train and manufacturing effort. For long-range arrows, the head is iron. Two compounds make up the construction: a hard edge and a softer core to absorb impact. A thirty-inch shaft uses lighter wood; this wood must be nearly straight, or the arrow fails. The fletchings usegoose feathersThis requires plucking many geese. Shorter range arrows are shorter and heavier. They use a thick piece of hard wood, like ash, with a bodkin head. This head is narrow for piercing armor at close range.

Henry V appointed a fletcher, a professional arrow maker, almost immediately after taking the throne.Nicholas Mynot, Keeper of the King's Arrows.Henry V set Nicholas Mynot up in the Tower of London with a staff and money to build up stocks. This job was separate from the King's Bowyer, who made bows and controlled wood use across the country. The Keeper of the King's Arrows started production and sent orders for tens of thousands of arrows to other fletchers.

Asked by /u/AnchezSanchez:

Were there any recorded cases of PTSD (or similar) after medieval warfare? I can only imagine the hack and slash fighting of hundreds of years ago was worse mentally. Did medieval people have a word for it? Or, maybe because of the different lifestyle, were people better prepared for violence from a mental health view?

Answered by /u/crackdtoothgrin:

I know no "name" for PTSD in the Middle Ages. As far as I know, it was usually called "homesickness" (Dr. Johannes Hofer in the 17th Century) or something similar in later write-upssimilar in later write-ups.

For non-named examples in that time, Geoffroi de Charny's literary works exist. He was a 14th-century French knight famous for his...Book [of] ChivalryIn it, he describes symptoms resembling PTSD.symptoms reminiscent of PTSD.He describes these as consequences of fighting, like lack of sleep and paranoia. He avoids calling it a medical condition; he talks about noble pursuits and good deeds of arms as ways to fight it.

Asked by/u/karmadon:

How common were flaming arrows in medieval warfare? How were they used?

Answered by/u/Freevoulous:

They were quite uncommon because of low effectiveness.low effectiveness.The arrow's speed usually extinguished the flame. This happened unless the bow or crossbow was intentionally strung loose, making it useless in actual combat. One known use of such arrows was the Siege of Oran (1404).Siege of Oran (1404)where attackers shot incendiary crossbow boltscrossbow bolts(and presumably arrows and other similar devices) to set fire to the port.

Flaming spears and javelins were much more likely. They were thrown by hand or from a siege engine.from a siege engine.Normally, if a siege weapon existed, it could shoot barrels of burning tar or baskets with oil-soaked rags, which worked better.

Asked by /u/AFnord:

Siege towers appear in movies and games. These are multi-story towers on wheels you roll up to an enemy castle, looking impressive. Where did they actually use them?

Answered by /u/Valkine:

Siege towers existed, but they did not feature at every siege, or even most. My knowledge of medieval sieges focuses more on Crusading warfare, so I will focus on that for examples.

Two famous Crusading sieges used siege towers: TheSiege of Jerusalemin 1099 and theSiege of Acrein 1189-91.

TheSiege of JerusalemThe siege of Jerusalem marked the end of the First Crusade. Crusaders took Jerusalem using two siege towers built from local wood. Their army was too small to surround the city. They also lacked time to wait for the Fatimid army from Egypt to attack outside the city. Instead, they built siege towers. Godfrey of Boiullon led one, reaching the walls, opening the gates, and taking the city.

TheSiege of Acrewas a long siege during the Third Crusade where Richard I eventually took the city. The siege tower story is shorter here. The Crusaders tried to take the city withthree siege towers...but Muslim defenders destroyed all three before they reached the walls (often by setting them on fire). The Siege of Acre was won by starving the city into surrendering.

Asked by /u/GlaDeux:

Why did so much weaponry develop during the Middle Ages if pitched battles weren't common?

Medieval warfare involved attrition, I heard. So why the focus on combat? Why so many different, advanced weapons and armors?

Answered by /u/DavidlikesPeace:

Many historians claim large pitched battles were rare in medieval warfare. However, this view can mislead. The medieval era was very violent, just as much as the times before and after it.

It is truePitched battles were likely rare.Pitched battles need several things. First, your general must risk everything on one day. Second, opponents must feel the same risk. Third, both armies must meet on a field to fight. Also, there shouldn't be many defenses offering cheap protection. Few of these needs happened during the medieval era; castles remained strong defenses. If a weaker side could retreat behind its castles, they had no reason to fight outside the walls.

Skirmishes andsiegesThese events took many lives. Castles and town walls limited offensive war and gave an inferior army shelter, but they could not protect a nation whole. Despite the image of chivalry and foolish tactical aggression, medieval warfare was a subtle mix of midnight raids, targeted attacks, and small fights between raiding groups. Even if your claim is true and combat was rare...soldiers needed protection, even when they were barely fighting. And medieval soldiers likely fought a lot.

Asked by /u/dbbbbbb:

I am a medieval knight in full plate armor, dismounted, in a battle. An enemy knight walks up, leans back, and hits me full on the chestplate with the blunt end of his heavy iron war hammer. What happens to my armor? What effect does the blow have on my body?

Answered by /u/Valkine:

There are a couple of different kinds of plate armor.Plate armor has different kinds. The effect varies based on what you wear. Several factors matter when taking a hit from a weapon....The effect would vary based on what you were wearing. Several factors matter when taking a hit from a weapon....

Does the weapon penetrate the armor and kill you? Probably not.HammersHammers and maces do not penetrate. Your armor is more likely to bend than just fall apart.

Does your armor absorb the impact? Even if your breastplate bends instead of crushing you, you take a lot of force straight to the chest. You might want your breastplate to collapse and absorb the blow's force as much as possible instead of just sending the force to your ribcage.

A force with enough impact can still damage you, even if your armor doesn't break.

The breastplate usually has the thickest steel in full plate armor, so remember that.The helmet arguably competes for that spot.Helmets show more variation than breastplates. A blow to a limb often disables more than one to the breastplate, even if the death chance is lower. Still, killing someone in full plate with one blow seems unlikely.

Asked by A Redditor:

Gamers know spearmen beat cavalry, cavalry beats archers, and archers beat spearmen. Does this "rock paper scissors" pattern apply to medieval warfare?

Answered by /u/nusensei:

The "counter" idea is a game mechanic. Real military actions relied on organization and logistics, which set battlefield tactics. A standard setup involved infantry in the center, skirmishers at the front, and light troops or cavalry on the flanks to stop encirclement. Commanders did not focus on the exact weapon used.

Games like the Total War series shows each unit using one weapon. Soldiers actually carried multiple arms.and used them as needed. Spears and polearms were the main battlefield weapons.The spear was cost-effective. It was easy for most fighters to use and versatile in formation fights. Swords were usually carried as a sidearm.The unpredictable battle meant any "counter" could fail with good command, morale, tactics, training, and luck. Spears counter cavalry only if the formation stays together. If cohesion breaks, cavalry shatters the line. The English focused on fighting dismounted with men-at-arms in the center against French cavalry.The counter to French cavalry is archers. A few thousand shafts into a charging line will knock down horses and men.

Asked bycounter to French cavalry:

I have heard that noblemen from enemy nations intentionally fought to avoid seriously harming each other, while common soldiers were fair game. Is this true? How much protection did nobles get under medieval rules? Answered by/u/Rittermeister

:

[This is] at best an exaggeration; at worst, it is completely wrong. Aristocrats went at each other:

[This is] at best an exaggeration, at worst completely wrong.

Aristocrats went at each otherHard combat meant heavy cavalry charges or melee clashes resulted in death or injury. Nobles faced danger from their lifestyle. Battles, tournaments, and hunts caused many knights and men-at-arms to die.

Being a knight, including higher-ranking nobles, offered an advantage. If wounded or surrendered, you expected to be taken prisoner. Common soldiers faced greater danger, risking being crushed in a killing frenzy during the fight's end. Some class awareness existed, but practical needs made capturing high-status prisoners desirable:Ransom.The ransom amount depended on status. An ordinary knight earned a good sum, but a major nobleman commanded a huge payment. Jean II, King of France, paid a ransom ofthree million écus.Nobility used gold coins.

Asked by/u/GreatGreenGorilla:

How did archers function in ancient and medieval warfare? What did an arrow wound feel like?

Did archers cover fire to keep enemies under shields, or did they wipe out half an army like in movies? If shot, did they more often die from infection than the actual wound?

Answered by /u/FlavivsAetivs:

Military archery tactics changed a lot. Archers could be either weak or very strong, depending on the situation. There are three basickinds of bow in ancient and medieval times: the self-bow, made from one piece of wood; the backed bow, made of wood with a sinew backing; and the composite bow, made from multiple materials like wood, horn/bone/antler, and sinew.

An English longbowis a self-bow; a Mongol bow was different.a composite bow. Combining layers increased a bow's power density. This meant a smaller bow held the power of a larger one, making it easier to use from horseback. Arrows have many arrowhead types. Most common ones are hunting or birding heads, which hit people but are not as effective as dedicated military styles.

Bows and other missile weapons served many purposes. One reason involved poorly made shields splitting apart. Still, using bows against shields was inefficient and ineffective. Throwing arrows at shield walls wasted effort, yet missile support against them mattered. Bows mostly functioned for skirmishing or fighting cavalry.

Arrow wounds could cause serious harm, but they differed from bullet strikes. Arrows did not shatter bones like bullets do in a limb. Amputations happened rarely because arrows did not break bones into pieces. Infection remained the main danger, but good medical care could stop it.Good medical practices helped ward off infection.These practices included using copper and silver tools and alcohol to cure infections.

Asked by /u/RikkiBousquet:

How do I join a trebuchet crew in late medieval France? Is it a family thing? Are there interviews? What are the risks and benefits of my new career that people don't know?

Answered by/u/J-Force:

[P]eople in the design team would be contacted or answer requests for siege engineers or carpenters to build complex equipment. Carpenters usually came fromlocal townsAnother key part of a trebuchet crew, especially those with special designs, involved the people who aimed and designed it. Large counterweight trebuchets fired slowly. They threw stones over 100kg, which could not be retrieved or reloaded during a siege. When they hit, sources show most fortifications fell after one or two impacts. Each shot counted, meaning they had to hit nearly every time.

Designers faced huge stresses on the wood. The pulley systems for raising counterweights on large machines were complex. They held things together with nails and rope. We know little about the background or training thesehigher ranking siege engineerspossessed....

Carpenters usually got training through apprenticeships. Sometimes this involved family, but not always. People moved from the country to cities seeking apprentice jobs. Before working near something complex like a trebuchet, you had to advance from simpler tasks. If you could build a chair, you could eventually build a trebuchet pulley system. This was the basic path.within a guildThis progression went from apprentice to master craftsman. It applied to parts not made by carpenters, like rope and sling.the ammunition itselfMasons usually built these trebuchets using local stone from the siege area. However, the training needed for smaller trebuchets was less demanding. Simpler artillery like ballistas, catapults, and small traction trebuchets required less skill.

Master craftsmen working with artillery earned excellent pay compared to regular jobs. Military equipment almost always carried a high price. A different benefit for a siege engineer in the later Middle Ages was...Political advancement....most siege engineers in history worked for counts, dukes, and kings, either seasonally or full-time.

Asked by. /u/Lexicorint:

During medieval warfare, what happened when a conquering army took over a city? How did the army treat the citizens?

Did they have a way or practice to tell the inhabitants they were under new rule?

Answered by /u/SgtBANZAI:

How the army treated citizens depended on several things. It did not change throughout the Middle Ages. Generally, rules of engagement formed from questions people asked themselves about what to do after capturing a city.

Did the city surrender right away? Did it surrender later? Were there any 'undesirable' acts by the opponents? Were there valuable things or people you feared destroying? Were you ordered to fight total war and take no prisoners?

Unless a commander was extremely bloodthirsty or unable to stop his troops from killing and looting the town, inhabitants could expect fair treatment if they surrendered.Surrendering.Outright surrender offered the best chance of survival. Even if the enemy spent much time and resources taking them, the garrison and citizens could still agree to a ceasefire and leave the town untouched. This applied if surrender meant the war ended (like the surrender of the English army at Bordeaux in 1453).at Bordeaux.in 1453

But if a city angered opposing forces with its strong defense, the besieging army might order pillaging and destruction. Then the population faced a grim end: death, enslavement, or robbery. Mongols were known for wiping out towns that resisted them.killing majority.of citizens during that process (siege of Baghdad, 1258).

Asked by /u/Mjaulen0709:

I understand that if the king died, the army immediately became disorganized. Those who could flee did so; those offered mercy laid down weapons. For the army to stay together, the king needed to be alive and known to be alive. If that is true, was the king always at major battles? Wouldn't the battle's goal be to reach the king?

Answered by /u/HammerovGrendel:

The King's personality dictates his importance in a medieval battle.There are warrior kings in this period, Edward I, Henry V, etc.The King's presence on campaign was not always needed. Leadership could be delegated if the King was too young, too old, or preferred administration over fighting. Battles deciding a campaign's result happened rarely. People mostly saw sieges or raids meant to force terms, as battles carried too much risk.Henry V.etc.

Direct attacks on the King's person matter.Hastings is one., Bosworth is another, but the one that comes to mind isEvesham in 1265.A writer saidIt was the."murder of Evesham, for battle it was none". Edward I created a "hit squad" of 12 knights, led by Roger Mortimer, to find and kill Simon De Montfort, ignoring any other tactics, with no surrender terms or chance.

Asked by /u/rustang0422:

What were medieval naval battles like?

I focus on naval warfare in the early and high middle ages, especially on the Atlantic. Mediterranean navies kept using galleys and tactics from Antiquity, with some changes. But what about North and West Europe? What ships did they use, and how did they fight with them?

Answered by /u/reginaldaugustus:

[Northern and Western Europeans used] galleys. These ships did not suit open, rough Northern European waters, but they sailed well along coasts, just like in the Mediterranean.

Besides galleys, the cog was a common medieval ship type. Records show many other ship types, but classifying them is hard because chroniclers lacked sailing experience; descriptions remain vague. It is certain thatthe Cog, and ships like it, were important types in Northern/Western Europe.

A main naval tactic of the time involvedboarding your foe.Height gave an advantage. If your ship was lower than the enemy, boarding was harder, and your low position made you a target. You faced a tough time.

[S]hips usually had "castlesMounted on the stern and bow, these were wooden tower fortifications. Archers and other ranged-weapon users rained projectiles onto nearby enemies. These structures were not permanent ship parts; they made the ships unwieldy. Commanders often chained ships together. This kept a formation coherent. Soldiers on one ship assisted others. Many large naval battles turned into land battles, except those fought on the water.