Talk:Medieval warfare/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peasant uprisings[edit]

In this text it says that all peasant revolts were supressed. Two border cases might be cited, both from a book by Barbara Tuchman about two successful uprisings. I shall try and get that book to read and confirm this, because the accounts that I have seen on the internet do not mention peasants, whereas I am sure Barabara Tuchman refers to these as peasant uprisings. In one account of the "The battle of the 400 golden spurs" Battle of the Golden Spurs, the peasants did away with the elite knights of France. It took several years before France could retaliate, as I recall it, under St Cyr. I seem to recall that some have described the some Swiss uprisings as being performed by peasants, leading eventually to a Switzerland without Habsburg interference. The peasants may not have been totally alone, but the term "peasant uprising" might still apply. Would anyone mind me citing these? DanielDemaret 22:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead...actually, I just had a class about peasant violence, I could send you the reading list if you want. It had some stuff about Swiss uprisings, the Hundred Years' War, and the 1381 revolt in England. Adam Bishop 17:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I did. And yes, I would love to see the readings list. My email is Perhaps even put the list in wikipedia somewhere? Perhaps there should be a "Peasant Uprisings" article? I am sure I would be interested in it. DanielDemaret 09:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is one - Popular revolt in late medieval Europe. Adam Bishop 17:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Nice one Anders, look forward to collaborating with you on this. JHK and MichaelTinkler inter alia might be interested in this one. sjc

Just so long as you tiptoe around the F-word (shhhh - feudalism), Anders, you'll be o.k.! --MichaelTinkler

I know! :-) Then we just need to sink our teeth into all these concepts and hammer out a readable text. Ugh. --Anders Törlind

Honor system[edit]

Wondering what was meant by the Honor(s) system???? JHK

Ah, just all the "honor in battle", "knights honor", "family honor" and all that stuff going on. Terribly unscientific, so please change it if you have a handy term for those kind of things :-) Might just be me reading to many romantic novels as well, hehe. --Anders Törlind

Ok -- i suggest changing to Chivalry JHK

Article scope: how early?[edit] early are we going with this? I ask because if we start adding in any old Germanic/Barbarian people, we're going to get a lot of folks who were allied with and trained by the Romans...which I would call late antique... Also, are we limiting this to Western Medieval? Someone is bound to want to throw in Japanese for comparison (eventually), I'm sure. Comments? Opinions? JHK

Hmmm. I think Europe is quite enough to deal with (the middle ages are hardly an era elswhere anyway). When to start? Pick a suitably early date. 700? What is the definition of medieval? --Anders Törlind

Typically, the European Medieval Period is considered from 476 CE onward - at least, that's how it's taught at the university level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important warrior peoples missing[edit]

Excellent question on the Medieval period. Many date it from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, until the gunpowder age. The Mongols and Vikings for example fall within this general Medieval period. Indeed both these peoples clashed with the well known medieval armored knights and defeated them in numerous battles. I have added sections on both. More needs to be done on the Turks and other Asiatic forces. All of thse peoples clashed with Westerners during the Medieval period. Indeed one of the biggest issues of that period was precisely that- fighting against other non-Western forces, via the Crusades. No realistic history of Medieval warfare can credibly afford to leave out such important peoples, battles, and warfighting methods.

Also added a section on the rise of infantry ending th long dominance ot the cavalryman- a staple of any history of medieval warfare Enriquecardova 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article organization[edit]

On another note; how to organize the article? Into sections dealing with various parts of warfare (battlefield, siege, transportation, levying and so on) and cover the developments through time in those sectons, or instead divide the article into chronological parts, covering certain time intervals? --Anders Törlind

I'm in favor of a combination. I think it's important to have a general chronologically/geographically organized section that gives an overview, and then links to the specific topics that are mentioned. Or, try to create a huge, coherent essay -- more challenging, though. JHK

Terminology: Islam, Turks, or Moors[edit]

Re: Islam, Turks, and Moors -- which shall we use? And speaking of which, are Turkish influences Medieval or Early Modern (goes back to the where are we focusing question...)? JHK

Each one were seperate groups , even though they all followed Mohamet (Islam)

1. The ones that came frome the south west to Spain and France and were stopped by the Franks.

   Called Moors

2. The Golden Horde Ghengis Khan , Liegnitz Silesia stopped at the gates of Berlin

       Don't know how many  of these were Muslim
not many. The Mongols took up Islam over the next hundred years, and only the ones that had settled down to rule former Islamic territory. --MichaelTinkler

3. Several times Turks on Vienna etc

I think each group should be mentioned seperately and not lumped together user:H.J.

Agreed. I have added extra sections to discuss some peoples in more depth like the Vikings

Enriquecardova 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right -- I should have said which, if any, should we use. I'm fairly sure that we all know that the Muslims in Spain were called Moors. I think many of us also know that this term was also used to refer to Muslims elsewhere. My question concerns whether or not we should give an anachronistic name a special place, or to refer to the Moors within the greater topic of Islam.

As for Genghis Khan and the Turks, my question is still whether they should be considered medieval or early modern. Since historians tend to see a separation between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and much of the contact betwen these groups and Europe happened more during the Renaissance, it's a legitimate question. One of the difficulties in answering is that most of Eastern Europe was barely affected by the events in Italy. Personally, I'm not absolutely sure that there was a Renaissance(rather than just another of many renaissances), but since the article is defined as "between Ancient and Renaissance, it needs to be addressed. JHK

Usually the end of the medieval period is attributed to the siege and conquest of Byzanz (1453) by the Ottoman Turcs. In addition the conflict between the Turcs (or better Turcoman Tribes) and the Byzantine state dates back well to early medieval Times if not even earlier (Battle of Manzikert 1071).



The Renissance Period is generally considered between 1400 to 1600, well after the main Mongol explosion. Enriquecardova 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article scope: general overview[edit]

I think this article should stick to describing medieval warfare in a kind of low-level summary, then direct readers to particular battles or particular period or regional histories (Crusades, Byzantium, War of the Roses, Reconquista) and leave the methodological arguments to those entries!--MichaelTinkler

My initial thought with this article was to be a collection of facts about "the waging of war" and its methodologies and the factors defining it during the middle ages. Perhaps it is a bit too large a topic to fit in one article, but i do think we could squeeze in the general principles and overall evolution of it here. A nice transition to Renaissance warfare (and subsequently the highly interesting 17th century warfare) would be nice as well, although there would be some overlap. --Anders Törlind

This looks like a workable and useful outline to me, Anders - and it sticks to medieval warfare rather than trailing off in a debate about the personalities of the OUTSIDE opponents. Nice job. (momentarily later) on a second read, is 'Medieval fortification' going to be a separate article? I don't see any headers here for castles, castle-design, etc. It would make sense as a separate article (referred to frequently inside this one) --MichaelTinkler
Medieval fortification is certainly large enough to warrant an article of its own, I think. As castle and fortification construction had a great impact on warfare, frequent linking is probably in order, yes. I'll do a piece similar to this one on the subject unless you feel inclined :-) --Anders Törlind

Removed: potato[edit]

Removed the following :

One of the reason the potato became popular food in western europe was that the potato's were buried and unedible for most of the year, allowing them to survive a plundering army.

Potatoes were not introduced into Europe until the second half of the sixteenth century, whereas the Middle Ages is generally agreed to end sometime in the fifteenth century. Gandalf61 08:29, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

The most commonly used dates to mark the "end" of the Middle Ages are either 1453 (Fall of Constantinople/Byzantium) or 1492. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article gives the impression (to me, anyway) that mounted knights were dominant in Europe all through the medieval period until made obsolete by gunpowder, but I think mention should be made of how the mounted knight as the main force of the army was successfully countered late in the medieval period by infantry using pikes, rather than gunpowder - consider the Scottish schiltrons at the Battle of Bannockburn. Average Earthman 17:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Earthman. More needs to be done on specific warrior peoples and their styles. The Swiss Pikemen for example, redressed the balance and helped restore infantry as a balance to the once dominant cavalry as did the English Long Bowman. Enriquecardova 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not just late medieval. The battle of Tours is regarded as a battle between masses of Heavy and Light Moorish cavalry against phalanx infantry, with the Franksih infantry winning the battle.

Tours is pre-stirrup on the Frankish side. You can't call it a medieval battle in a technological sense. Taking up stirrup technology then started a dominance of the mounted knight up to Morgarten (interestingly one year after this Scottish battle) and later Agincourt. That's more than 500 years of near invincibility. 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naval warfare[edit]

A lot of nice work is being done on this article, but I have an issue with some of the naval warfare bits - Lepanto, Henry VIII's fleet, and the Spanish Armada aren't medieval. I suppose they could be mentioned as examples of post-medieval developments. I didn't want to remove it entirely because it is pretty long, but as it is written right now it seems like it is saying the late 16th century is still the middle ages. Adam Bishop 15:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concur- these events aren't really medieval... I suppose they give some information about medieval warfare by saying what hadn't happenned yet. We do need more material on naval warfare in the actual medieval period. -FZ 16:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mostly my edits that you are complaining about :) I see what mean, although it does depend on how you define medieval (yes, I suppose the Mary Rose and the Spanish Armada are really examples of early modern naval warfare, but I'm not sure that there is another article where they would be more at home). Would it be clearer to explain that medieval naval warfare pre-dated the effective use of cannon on ships, and go on to explain the massive changes that came about soon thereafter? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Series boxes[edit]

Is there some way to align the series boxes better? It doesn't look very good right now (at least on Netscape) should be below the other, or maybe directly beside each other, but I don't know how to do it. Adam Bishop 15:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree - I've tried swapping their order, using a table, and putting the templates on the same line, but the preview never looks quite right, so I just left it as it was. There may be a format issue with one of the boxes that inserts an extra blank line. The other alternative it to put one lower down in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


As someone has noted in the article, is there any reason why knights are singled out? I understood knighthood to be more of a feudal title than a battlefield command or a type of soldier. I suggest that the Organization section be broken up into "Nobility/Men-at-arms", "Peasant/serfs" then "Cavalry", "Infantry". Infantry and cavalry often consisted of both nobility and serfs, but nobles and serfs had very different roles in forming and organizing a medieval army. --kudz75 05:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Knights/Heavy Cavalry[edit]

(How valuable is it to call out knights and heavy cavalry separately? There would appear to be a large overlap between the two, in that knights were generally heavy cavalry, even if it didn't always work the other way around.)

(knights were not allways heavy cavalry, some of them fought on foot and in some areas the people who perfomed the same task a knights were not heavy cavalry (note the siphi (might have spelt that wrong sorry) of the Ottoman empire who like knights were given land by their rulers in return for military service however they were light cavalry))

I cut this from the article and put it here, because it seems like discussion ought to be on the discussion page. Whoever wrote it can sign it if they'd like. Apol0gies 18:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adding to this, even if it's old. Heavily armed cavalry, armed with lances and a varied assortment of hand weapons played a significant part in the battles of the Middle Ages. The heavy cavalry mainly consisted of wealthy knights and noblemen who could afford the equipment. Heavy cavalry was the difference between victory and defeat in many key battles. Their thunderous charges could break the lines of most infantry formations, making them a valuable asset to all medieval armies. This is a)wrong in fact, on practically all points, and b)not written in an encyclopedic style. "Thunderous charges" - please? --OliverH (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Cavalry generally played a minor role in most battles, being relegated to pursuing fleeing troops, flanking manouevres (where possible), fighting the opposing cavalry, or (rarely) for breaking undisciplined formations. The strength of a cavalry charge was in its ability to frighten men and break their morale; a charging horse quickly loses momentum, and its footing, after trampling a couple of men, not to mention that if the infantry does not flee, the horse will be killed or severely wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be fair cavalry did not play a minor role in warfare it was the dominant arm in the middle ages the renaissance was their ('knights') heyday cavalry will not slip after trampling a couple of people, and horses can be trained to charge head into solid infantry

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged HussarReply[reply]

These two sentences are contradictory: However, until a significant break in the enemy infantry lines arose, the cavalry could not be used to much effect against infantry ; for horses, having more sense than men, are not easily harried into a wall of pikemen. and then later talking about heavy calvary Their thunderous charges could break the lines of most infantry formations. Jlenthe (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanding the concept?[edit]

I noticed that Japan is mentioned in the introduction, but I don't see anything about it in the actual article. The military history of feudal Japan should fit quite nicely within the time frame, considering that there was not much war actually being waged after the Tokugawa unification and that European medieval history goes way into the 16th century for som parts of Europe (like Sweden). And not a word about China either.

I know that proper articles on the military history of both China and Japan have been written, but why keep them seperated? I think this is a good opportunity to avoid the same old retelling of the same old eurocentric perspective of medieval history. - karmosin 06:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

.............. Without getting into any debate on eurocentrism, there is plenty of room for everybody if the focus is on warfare. If a broad "world history" timeline approach is taken yours is a reasonable view. After all Medieval European history was heavily involved with non-Western peoples like the Turks via the Crusades. It would be good if a section were added on feudal Japan, to compare and contrast the warfighting methods and weapons there to those in Europe. I have added just such a section on the Mongols. The Mongols clashed with the knights of Europe in the 13th century, liquidating several Polish and Hungarian armies sent against them. Enriquecardova 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, medieval means Europe. The term has been applied to other regions by analogy, but it is a western term, about western history. Most other cultures have their own historiographical periodization labels, usually along the lines of the name of a city or ruler that was dominate in that age. The west is unique in its 3-tier view of history (ancient/middle (medieval)/modern), created by (christian) humanists during the renaissance. -- Stbalbach 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Where these other cultures had a definite impact on Western history during the time period in question then they need mention. The main focus could still be on the European context keeping what you say in mind. It should be noted that the Britannica mentions the Mongols in its article on warfare, during the Medieval period. Enriquecardova 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The burger[edit]

What is "the burger" in personal equipment? It's been listed there for 4 years now and no one has removed it, so I guess it's legitimate, but I don't know. Adam Bishop 16:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As I see it. The section is was really unclear anyways because just it said, "personal equipment" and then listed a bunch of classes of people that use personal equipment. I changed that. Added "... for".
  • In Dutch "een burger" [1] is a civilian. In medieval times, I would imagine it should say "peasant" or "commoner" or ... ? --None-of-the-Above 16:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
=) --None-of-the-Above 18:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You got me to thinking. There is something very wrong with that section. A nobleman/knight and burgher are social classes while infantryman/archer are ranks in military and engineer ... did they have engineers back then? I don't think there will ever be a link behind burgher because there weren't any typical weapons characteristically used by peasants except for maybe pitchforks, hammers, etc... (work tools). I don't think there is going to be an article in Wiki about work tools as weapons. I think that list needs to be re-thought. --None-of-the-Above 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There very much were engineers in the Medieval Period, and these were generally burghers, since they would have to have some mechanical/mathematical (especially geometric)/construction expertise. Also, a burgher is NOT a peasant. A peasant is a rural, landowning farmer while a burgher is a middle class, most often urban-dwelling, individual. A peasant could actually be quite wealthy or incredibly poor, while a burgher was, by definition, somewhere in the middle.

GA Failed[edit]

Reasons: perhaps not factually accurate or verifiable; the coverage is not broad, the Medieval Warfare should not be limited to knights, longbows, Mongols and Vikings; the space allocated to different topics in the article is so unbalanced that it amounts to POV; no images, and it is on a subject where appropriate images are easily available; there is a section header with no text below and "notes" appearing at the end of a section.

Well, that was negative, so I had better balance it with some constructive comments. Most importantly, balance the article content and fix the lack of breadth. Have a look at how Keen and Nicholson divide their space. It is nothing like the way this article does. Verbruggen's Art of Warfare in Western Europe gives a lot of weight to knights, but again the content of his work is nothing like this article. Contamine devotes a sixth or so of the main text to judicial, ethical and religious aspects of war, topics not exactly prominent here. For statements which may be controversial, add inline references using Cite.php or similar. For claims of revolutionary change and importance, i.e. knights, stirrups, gunpowder, explain why it was important or revolutionary, if indeed it was, and cite sources who say so. Don't rely too much on older works like Oman and, to a lesser extent, Contamine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see the 'Great Stirrip Controversy' for information about the importance of the stirrup to the development of the Feudal Order and its significance as a Military Innovation. The thrust of the matter is that the stirrup was a refinement of, not a requirement for, the mounted use of the lance and other weapons and perhaps a slight refinement at that...--M.J.Stanham 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI The article M.J. Stanham is referring to is referenced in the stirrup article. [User:Jerdwyer|Jerdwyer]] 01:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


I think the article still puts the role of infantry short. According to my reading of the pertinent literature, there was no time in which a well-disciplined infantry could not repel a cavalry charge. More importantly, critical to the success of practically all campaigns is the seizing and keeping of key locations, a task for which infantry is critical. You won't see a destrier ride up a castle wall, but you will see an infantry man climb a ladder. A knight with a lance won't take down a gate, but a bunch of axemen will. The key point in the later middle-ages is that disciplined infantry becomes more and more common as A)the rise of the cities brings about city militia and B)the advent of mercenary companies brings the professional soldier out of the realm of nobility and thus creates well-trained and thus well-disciplined infantry. The key point, however, is that this training brings about the possibility of an infantry offense on the free field, where earlier, it was mostly capable of holding a position and letting the enemy attack break up. The "mass of pikes" has existed for quite a while and even a mass of shields is enough to break a cavalry charge. However, when the mass of pikes or the mass of shields gets moving, it usually had difficulties retaining formation. That's what changed with the return of drilled infantry. --OliverH 10:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is largely true and the role of infantry in medieval warfare is currently being redressed in academic discourse. It appears to be taking some time to filter through, though. Although Oman's thesis is now largely unsupported, it remains influential.--M.J.Stanham 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Verbruggen already had first notions that there might be more to infantry than was thought 50 years ago, though he didn't quite follow through on it. But Bachrach &Cie have been around for a while, too. Unfortunately, popular literature still serves to spread the notion that Hastings was the proof of the superiority of cavalry when it was, in fact, more like the opposite. Unfortunately, especially with laypeople, the "big" names like Oman and Delbrück are much more present than more current researchers. Then again, as far as history is concerned, I'm a layperson, too. :P --OliverH 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be fair, solid infantry have been broken by a head on cavalry charge from the front and often enough to make it a tactix worth trying.

Also, I would think that a ram would be a better choice against a gate than anything else and cavalry still have an important part to play, intercepting reinforcments and sorties, patrolling, recon, foraging, and the gates were breached you could send them through.

And according to my research the norman cavalry did win the day at hastings and the infantry on both sides didn't perform very well.

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged HussarReply[reply]

Is this article made for european?[edit]

"Deployment of forces" ambiguity[edit]

In the fourth paragraph of the "Deployment of forces" section, there is the following sentence;

"When the wedge came into contact with the infantry line, more often than not it would cave in on itself"

What "it" refers to in this line is ambiguous, whether it's the wedge collapsing in on itself, or whether it is the infantry line itself. I would think that it is referring to the infantry line, but the wording gives the strong impression that it is referring to the wedge. I think a person who knows which formation is being referred to here should reword it to make it clearer.--Tabun1015 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it meant the infantry formation collapsing. I'm more worried that the paragraph seems to imply a head-on attack, the pointlessness of which has already been discussed here. The wedge makes more sense when you picture it rushing into narrow gaps in the enemy line or hitting the flank of a formation and forcing their mutually-supporting ranks apart. If the defender's front ranks are preoccupied by a head-on infantry attack, they can't counter the charge and the scattered formation will probably lose the ensuing melee. EatYerGreens 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Crossbow" - ambiguous sentence[edit]

"The crossbow lacked the range of the longbow, but packed a bolt of greater penetrating power, and did not require the extended years of training and use demanded by the longbow. A cheap "low class" weapon, considered "unchivalrous" by those unlucky enough to face it, the longbow outperformed the crossbow in the hands of skilled archers, and was to transform several battlefields in Europe."

Structure and punctuation of the closing sentence can be read in such a way as to imply that it's the longbow being described as cheap, low class, unchivalrous. I would like to suggest either: - "...unlucky enough to face it FULL_STOP The longbow outperformed...." Or: - "...unlucky enough to face it but the longbow outperformed...." EatYerGreens 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English longbow[edit]

The article says

Longbowmen were used to deadly effect on the continent of Europe, as assorted kings and leaders clashed with their enemies on the battlefields of France. The most famous of these battles were Crécy and Agincourt.

However, the longbow was already largley obsolete by the battle of Agincourt due to the development of steel armour that could not be penetrated by the soft iron tips on the longbow arrows. // Liftarn

I've seen the particular TV documentary where this issue was raised (and demonstrated by reconstruction) but seen it roundly criticised, in online discussion forums, for their failure to use the right material for the job. Soft iron! I would like to have seen them try a 'case-hardened' iron tip and also a steel tip, before drawing their conclusions. However, it can easily be argued that 'blister steel' manufacture was low-volume and that converting it into useful artefacts was quite awkward (the thing that made steel weapons and armour so expensive in the first place) such that the cost of producing 'disposable' steel arrow tips, by the thousands, would be considerable. Written records of this, amongst accounts of other military expenditure _ought_ to exist, somewhere - provided you assume that national treasuries ever had a hand in the matter. Or are we supposed to believe that 'commoner' archers could afford to buy their own (steel) arrow tips?

A more recent TV series, featuring Mike Loades' reconstructions demonstrated that armour penetration was possible but at a LOT LESS than the longbow's much-vaunted 'long range'. Under testing, it was only truly penetrative at around 80 yards - meaning that charging cavalry would reach them, from there, in less than 30 seconds, against a firing rate of (at best) 12 rounds per minute. (Hence it makes sense that the general idea was to hit the horse, so as to dismount the rider, putting him on level terms with defending footsoldiers).

As I see it, the effectiveness in the longbow (en masse) was in its ability to render inadequately armoured troops next to useless and thus force the most heavily armoured, elite, troops to make the initial assault. Doing this on foot (the whole point of cavalry is the rate of closure, minimising time of exposure to missile fire), in thick mud (posited), proved to be catastrophic, at Agincourt. The 'crowd dynamics' aspect of that battle is fascinating but would probably be classified as 'original research', under Wiki guidelines. EatYerGreens 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arrowheads found at the site of the battle was of soft iron. As for the crowd dynamics we have a source[2] so it's not original research. Online discussion forums are not a reliable source, but the TV documentary (probably) is. // Liftarn
Nice link, thanks. Whilst I'll not dispute the soft iron thing, I'm still of the opinion that the armour was not completely invincible. The latest Mike Loades series is called The Weapons that made Britain. I got my figures wrong though - in the episode about armour, he rated the archer's 'killing zone' as being as little as 20 meters, against a quality breastplate. I'll see if he has a website I can link to. EatYerGreens 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly. You could always get a lucky shot. Or aim for the horse for that matter. // Liftarn
I'm of the opinion that the word 'aim', in this context, is worthy of a discussion in itself. Popular culture has a habit of conjuring up an image of target archery (training or competition) or else some 'crack shot' character who can pick off individuals at will. Either way, the emphasis is placed on accuracy. Now, in a battle situation, archers would either need to be psychic or constantly calling to one another, in order to avoid sticking a dozen arrows in the same individual, leaving eleven others untouched. In other words, they fired en masse, with no particular aim (other than getting the elevation, for range, roughly right), hit on the basis of luck and, hence, bows should be regarded as an 'area weapon' - contrary to the popular image. Being larger, horses stood a statistically greater chance of being hit (and contemporary paintings do depict this happening) but I see that more as unavoidable consequence than a result of intent. Having said that, at close range, where deliberate aim would certainly be worthwhile, I agree that they would be aiming at the horses. EatYerGreens 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be interesting to see an exposition of pows, hostages, slavery and population decimations that were also standard military practice of the time added to this page.--Tigeroo 14:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Nice Pictures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappaji (talkcontribs) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers at Crecy and Longbow fire rate[edit]

In the article it states that 15000 crossbowmen were at the battlefield, the number was actually roughly 6000. There should more on the battle, as the crossbowmen started to advance, they released that they were outranged. Seeing this disadvantage they retreated, only to be trampled by their own french employers. Another thing is that the longbow didn't fire 20 shots a minute its fire rate was actually 8 to 12 shots a minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddmandan (talkcontribs) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra-European scope of article[edit]

On what grounds is the military history of the extra-European peoples and empires discussed here at length? The article falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages and all articles of the Template:Middle Ages wide 2 at the bottom (save one) exclusively deal with European events. Since the other armies and campaigns all have their own article, while the poor European knights and Landsknechts have to share theirs here with all the others, I propose to restore its original scope, and this is medieval = European. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you've been removing non-European things from other medieval articles; is this really a good idea? Medieval Europe did not exist in a vacuum. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is off-topic here, I gave my reasons on your talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Longbow and the Decline of Heavy Cavalry[edit]

So, I'm having a little trouble with the entry concerning the rise of infantry tactics and the role of the English longbow... namely, the article boldy states that the combination of pike and longbow lead directly to decline of heavy cavalry (ie, the medieval knight) not only in British Isles (where its nfluence is unquestionable) and France (where supporting evidence is strong) but in Europe as a whole (which seems extremely difficult to support). Given that the longbow essentially saw very little action on the continent, outside of Hundred Year's War, it is difficult to see how it can be held to play a critcal role in the gecline of the knight in such places, say, as the Holy Roman Empire. Free Companies of mercenary longbowmen were used to good effect in Spain and Italy, the longbow never usurped the position of the crossbow in those areas. Even in France, use of the longbow was abandoned not long after the war and the use of the crossbow returned to prominence. Furthermore, it is ultimately gunpowder when combined with the pike that ends the reign of cavalry as the decisive arm, and while the gun and the crossbow share certain critical features which are generally held to be responsible this process, the longbow does not - I am mainly refering here to the ease at which previously untrained persons can be taught to use a handgun or a crossbow effectively, whereas developing the strength and accuracy to wield a longbow is a lifelong endevor with a steep social cost (one which the French could not or would not endure). I know that the role of the longbow in the decline of the knight is a very popular assertion on the part of English historians, so I don't want to rush in and make major edits to this article, but I have to ask what are the sources for the longbow being a critical part of the process outside Britian and France (the latter being something that could use some discussion as well...)? Tadatsune (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Church's Mitigation of Warfare[edit]

This article needs a section on how the church mitigated warfare with it's restriction on how and when their could be fighting. That was a prominent part of medieval warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medieval warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've just reverted an IP's edit from UK to U.S. spelling (changing 'armor' back to 'armour'), but on scanning the article it appears that there's a mix of the two styles, but with UK (Oxford) spelling predominant. For consistency I propose that UK spelling be used throughout. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've just reverted an unattributed copy/paste of a large block of text from Hungarian invasions of Europe, but reinserted the heading and the link to the main article. IMHO this section could be expanded to a short summary in proportion to the other sections in this article, but with emphasis on their distinctive characteristics in warfare, rather than just a chronology, in keeping with the subject of this article. Bahudhara (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article's Focus[edit]

As this article is part of a series of the overall history of warfare the article should take the entire world of the medieval period into account. To flesh out Medieval European Warfare as is fitting a separate article would need to be created, perhaps called Medieval European Warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talkcontribs) 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at this article's tables there is some overlap. The history of warfare's table includes this article as if it would include warfare world-wide in this period of history. However this article is also included as part of a series of Medieval Europe.

Perhaps this article should be renamed, and another article should broadly cover medieval warfare world-wide for continuity from the world-spanning ancient warfare article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talkcontribs) 14:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a problem here, within the 'War template, this page is listed here as Post Classical History of War presumably to give a global focus, and a choice will need to be made. This page will either need to be changed to accommodate a global focus, or this page with its valuable information will be cooperated into the European Middle Ages series and a new article about global warfare in this time period will be made. The Status Quo is not appropriate. -Sunriseshore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talkcontribs) 01:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source reliability[edit]

@GreenC: Without commenting on the content, I was wondering why in this edit the source is considered unreliable? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were added by the author of the papers, how reliable they are as legitimate sources vs. promotional content is step 1. The user is a SPA who has done nothing but add cites to their own papers. They are also using multiple accounts. They are (AFAICT) unpublished papers, these are generally not considered reliable sources, unless something special like a PhD thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If they are published in a journal then where they are published needs to be indicated, is a repository not a publication we can't determine source reliability without a publication. -- GreenC 20:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreenC: The author adding information from sources they have written does not impact their reliability. It does, however, need to be declared as per the guidelines for dealing with COIs. can be used to host all sorts of documents, from published works to drafts. The three sources removed have each been published in journals so unless there are other considerations would appear to be reliable. Bibliographic details below:
  • Romanoni, Fabio (2008), "Guerra e navi sui fiumi dell'Italia settentrionale (secoli XII- XIV)", Archivio Storico Lombardo, 134
  • Romanoni, Fabio (2016), "L'organizzazione militare a Tortona attraverso il « Registro delle entrate e uscite del Comune » (1320-1321)", Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino, 114
  • Romanoni, Fabio; Bargigia, Fabio (2017), "La diffusione delle armi da fuoco nel dominio visconteo (secolo XIV)", Revista Universitaria de Historia Militar, 6 (11)
Richard Nevell (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, you have established publications. The next step is you would read/verify these sources and decide if they should be included in the article as a neutral and independent editor, that it makes sense for the article to included the cited fact, and is not just trivia or an excuse to have cites by this COI editor. IMO most of the added text has been trivia and/or inappropriate, a coat hook to to hang a cite onto for the primary purpose of increasing the number of cites by this author. -- GreenC 23:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bibliographic information was just a click away and very prominent on, so I'm concerned how much scrutiny went into the sources before they were declared 'unreliable' or of this action was more of a reflex. Richard Nevell (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps then the best thing will be to open a case at WP:COI noticeboard and see what the rest of the community thinks about it. BTW I do not see a "click away" to the bibliography information. -- GreenC 14:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's concerning, because it was on the academia pages linked. Did you follow the links? Perhaps it depends on your location, though that's not behaviour I've seen from before. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing on the pages show a citation or bib reference. I am not logged in and don't have an account. -- GreenC 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me neither (about not being logged in, I do have an account). Strange that we should find different information. It's right there in the title for me. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't read Italian. Nothing there looks like a citation it's a page title. And your citation includes "volume 134" but that is not there. Your getting data from somewhere else and then saying it was just a "click away". -- GreenC 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is indeed the bibliographic information, and gleaned entirely from the page linked to. The page title is given as 'Guerra e navi sui fiumi dell'Italia settentrionale (secoli XII- XIV)- Archivio Storico Lombardo, CXXXIV (2008).' which breaks down into:
  • Title: Guerra e navi sui fiumi dell'Italia settentrionale (secoli XII- XIV)
  • Journal: Archivio Storico Lombardo
  • Year of publication: 2008
  • Volume 134 (CXXXIV in Roman numerals).
And of course Fabio is the author. One thing I did miss is the page range (11–46) which isn't stated in the title but is evident from the start and end page numbers of the PDF which can be viewed even without logging in. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing to indicate "CXXXIV" is a Volume number, though I don't suggest it isn't but not at all apparent. None of it addresses the more serious infration of a COI editor spamming Wikipedia with publications they authored, adding text which acts as a coat hook to hang cites for their own works, and often doing it in prominent locations within an article where it is out of place as dangling trivia. This is why COI says it is as problem, they put their own needs ahead of Wikipedia's best interests. Relevant content policies are WP:NPOV specific to WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT. -- GreenC 18:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, it looked pretty straightforward to me but then I have seen more bibliographies than you can shake a stick at. I hope more attention has been paid to the context of the additions than was initially put into working out whether the sources were published otherwise we risk doing the editor an injustice and falling short of helping someone inexperienced in how Wikipedia works. Can I trust that they are being given a helping hand to understand what has gone wrong and what to do in the future? Richard Nevell (talk)
When they are using multiple accounts there is some good faith concern but yes they were informed about COI. -- GreenC 20:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Que es el imperio de las rosas[edit]

El imperio de las rosas es un país donde salen rosas cada ves que sale el sol y a la vez llueve es por eso que también hay muchas rosas en las casas patios y piscinas y gracias a eso es que se llama el imperio de las rosas 2800:BF0:8293:1065:2506:D273:EDE3:2B9 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]