Top Ten Medieval Battles

1453 is also the formal end of the 'Hundred Years' War', with England's final route at Castillon in July. Seeing as how this was the first battle in Western Europe where gunpowder had a significant effect on the outcome, 1453 has been taken as a good year to close the Middle Ages. Another factor to consider is that the moving-type printing press started becoming extremely affluent in this decade.

Personally, I would argue that the period between 1453 and 1563 (the closing of the Council of Trent) is a sort of transitional period and should be counted as neither medieval nor 'early modern' (or both, if you want to view it like that). This has the added bonus of being able to consider this era to be the final phase of the Renaissance, and thus there's less ambiguity about when that nebulous cultural era came to an end and the Baroque era began. Plus, I don't find it particularly useful to have the epoch shift immediately as the New World is discovered or the Protestant Reformation kicks off in Wittenberg, as these events are what began massively important focuses on colonialism and ecclesiology, respectfully, but were not world-changing from the get-go in the way e.g. Pearl Harbor was.

These categorizations are entirely worthless and wonderfully arbitrary so there's not much point in putting a lot of effort into conformity on the matter though, which is why you'll never catch me being nitpicky about this.
 
What is universally agreed upon is that 1600 is not "medieval".

A Euro-centric agreement. In Japan it lasted into the Shogunate.

Unless you have some other definition of Medieval.
Spoiler :
...the organization of peasants into villages that owed rent and labor services to the nobles; and feudalism — the political structure whereby knights and lower-status nobles owed military service to their overlords, in return for the right to rent from lands and manors - were two of the ways society was organized in the High Middle Ages....
 
Feudalism isn't even one singular thing, much less a singular thing that defined a huge era spanning from the 5th to 16th centuries, much less a singular thing that can be transposed to Japan to categorize its own history. It's a billion times more Eurocentric to use a term like "medieval" to talk about noneuropean countries than it is to simply confine it to Europe.
 
...the organization of peasants into villages that owed rent and labor services to the nobles; and feudalism — the political structure whereby knights and lower-status nobles owed military service to their overlords, in return for the right to rent from lands and manors - were two of the ways society was organized in the High Middle Ages....
You know, that definition almost exactly works for the way militaries were raised and maintained in parts of Eastern Europe into the nineteenth century. Russian service nobility, combined with a levy from serfs for the cannon fodder, provided the basis for the tsarist military to 1874. Parts of the definition also apply for Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian armies well past the so-called Military Revolution. And I don't think you want to say that, say, Borodino was a "medieval" battle, do you?

There is really not such a thing as "medieval" anything but Europe, as LS said. For the purposes of this thread, "medieval" can be applied to "anything contemporary to medieval European history", because otherwise it'd be a lot less interesting and because the OP basically said that anyway. And he's right about the whole "medieval warfare" paradigm: since "medieval" as a whole indicates "between classical antiquity and the early modern period", the end of the age of medieval warfare is usually held to be the mid-to-late fifteenth century, with 1453 being a popular date due to the Battle of Castillon and the siege of Constantinople, both of which saw the widespread employment of things like gunpowder weapons and the kernels of long-service forces.
 
...the organization of peasants into villages that owed rent and labor services to the nobles; and feudalism — the political structure whereby knights and lower-status nobles owed military service to their overlords, in return for the right to rent from lands and manors - were two of the ways society was organized in the High Middle Ages....
Well I guess we can strike Clontarf as taking place in the Medieval era. I guess a good chunk of Britain hopped straight from the Classical Era into the Modern Era.
 
Siam into the 1860s.
 
You would be right.
 
I am curious as to which battles in Medieval History people think as important in the development of the era and Western World as well...

...For the purposes of this thread, "medieval" can be applied to "anything contemporary to medieval European history", because otherwise it'd be a lot less interesting and because the OP basically said that anyway.

I stand corrected.

Mention of Pasunda Bubat and similar others had me confused.
 
It was important in the development of the Western world, albeit not for the kinds of reasons people think. :p
 
Seeing as how this was the first battle in Western Europe where gunpowder had a significant effect on the outcome,

You forgot about various battles of the Hussite Wars.

Sometimes the battle of Ravenna in 1512 is mentioned as the first pitched battle in which cannons played a decisive role.

However, I would argue that already during the Hussite wars various gunpowder weapons were important for the Hussites in field battles.

with 1453 being a popular date due to the Battle of Castillon and the siege of Constantinople, both of which saw the widespread employment of things like gunpowder weapons and the kernels of long-service forces.

Alredy battles of the Hussite Wars saw widespread employment of things like gunpowder weapons.

When it comes to siege battles - many of them saw widespread employment of cannons in 15th century. Not just Constantinople.

Regarding the siege of Constantinople - its importance lays mainly in the fact that it practically ended the Byzantine Empire.
 
ParkCungHee said:
Okay, so now I'm curious, what elements allowed this system to develop in Siam?

Wet rice cultivation provides large surpluses. Unlike in Southern China though, suitable areas for cultivation were relatively much rarer in Southeast Asia. Those who controlled the bigger of these spaces - e.g. Kyaukse in Upper Burma - could leverage that into a large enough quantitative advantage to make a go of dominating the smaller, less significant, rice cultivating areas and/or exploiting the 'hill tribes' around them. Offsetting these centripetal forces was the short campaigning season due to the annual monsoon and the dictates of rice agriculture and the broad spatial distribution of rice producing areas. This produced a range of compromises between the center - the King - and the periphery - the nobles - usually expressed in graduated levels of troop contributions with those further out providing proportionally less than those closer in. The troops were drawn from the villages and entourages of the nobles who commanded them. Burma, Thailand and Java fall into this model.

There are alternative models. Aceh substituted rice cultivation for pepper cultivation, and managed the relationship through monopolization (at least for a time) of the right to sell it. Provided the uleebalang ('warlord') kept sending pepper production back to the capital the system held together. When the center ceased to be able to kill them revoke their offices at will, the uleebalang stopped sending pepper and the centers ability to influence the periphery declined. Interestingly, the uleebalang continued to consider royal recognition as an important part of being an uleebalang. So much so, that rival candidates were willing to fight wars in and around the capital to pressure the Sutalanas/Sultans to grant them the title. We even know of a few situations were candidates seemed to back down after the other was granted recognition. What remained of royal power was dependent upon uleebalang good graces and, by and large, the model however dysfunctional worked until the Sultanate fell in the 1880s.

Cambodia offers another alternative model. It created the Angkhor region rice complex through extensive engineering projects. Prior to those, the region wasn't notable for its fertility. This innovation allowed Angkor to expand its core relative to a 'fixed' periphery provided it had enough people to maintain the system. This allowed Khmer armies to expand far beyond what their original hand would suggest. The problem being that actually maintaining the conquests was difficult, and the addition of so many actors tended to complicate and lengthen the inevitable Civil Wars. It was during a period of particularity prolonged Civil Wars that the first Ta'i adventurers were invited into the Chao Phraya Valley. Subsequent instability allowed the various Ta'i statelets to coalesce into more powerful kingdoms which eventually proved a significant enough threat to remove the Khmer from Angkor. Most of this was achieved under the guise of being Khmer vassals, taking part in Khmer Civil Wars, for Khmer claimants to the throne.
 
You forgot about various battles of the Hussite Wars.

Bohemia and Hungary, the setting for most of the military conflicts during the Hussite Rebellion, is generally not considered "western Europe"; a qualification I made in the original post but you de-emphasized when quoting it.

That being said, neither Castillon nor the 1453 siege of Constantinople were where gunpowder was first utilized in European warfare; rather, it was first seen in the Chinese rockets used by the Golden Horde in the mid-13th century. Castillon, however, marks when gunpowder was less seen as an exotic gimmick and more as a weapon without which no large field army was fit for battle (which can be seen in the fact that Charles VII's reign marks the end of France's nobility-drawn cavalry army, and the beginning of their standing mercenary army that had a professional artillery corps).
 
Bohemia and Hungary, the setting for most of the military conflicts during the Hussite Rebellion, is generally not considered "western Europe"; a qualification I made in the original post but you de-emphasized when quoting it.

So you apply modern terms developed during the 18th - 19th centuries to Europe during the age of Medieval Universalism?

Not a very good idea.

That being said, neither Castillon nor the 1453 siege of Constantinople were where gunpowder was first utilized in European warfare

Of course but we were talking about battles with widespread use of gunpowder weapons or in which they played decisive role, right?

Castillon, however, marks when gunpowder was less seen as an exotic gimmick and more as a weapon without which no large field army was fit for battle

That was marked by the Hussite way of fighting - not by the battle of Castillon.

(which can be seen in the fact that Charles VII's reign marks the end of France's nobility-drawn cavalry army, and the beginning of their standing mercenary army that had a professional artillery corps).

It had a professional mercenary cavalry component too.
So I doubt that it was gunpowder which made nobility-drawn armies obsolete.

A noble is not more vulnerable to gunpowder than a mercenary noble (or a mercenary townsmen / other mercenary free man) is.

It was rather the fact that nobility became less combative and more concerned about economic matters than it had been in previous centuries.

I.e. nobility (and also town / village levies) lost its former combat value - especially compared to professional mercenary soldiers.

a qualification I made in the original post but you de-emphasized when quoting it.

Because I see no reason to divide into "Western Europe" on one hand and "Bohemia and Hungary" on the other hand in 15th century.
 
I hope you're not reading some crazy Czech nationalist that says that Jan Žižka invented a medieval wagon-tank that thoroughly romped the imperial armies or something equally ridiculous.

Infantry with guns really were not very useful at all until the tercio (pike-and-shot square developed by the Spanish) in the late 1400s and the Hungarian arquebusiers of the early 1500s. The weapons used by the Hussites were not particularly distinguished from anything used a century before them either; what made Castillon a paradigm battle is the artillery, which thoroughly routed the English advance.
 
It had a professional mercenary cavalry component too. So I doubt that it was gunpowder which made nobility-drawn armies obsolete.

Most armies in the ancient world were significantly if not mostly composed of mercenaries, that of Carthage being perhaps the finest example.
 
It had a professional mercenary cavalry component too. So I doubt that it was gunpowder which made nobility-drawn armies obsolete.

A noble is not more vulnerable to gunpowder than a mercenary noble (or a mercenary townsmen / other mercenary free man) is.

It was rather the fact that nobility became less combative and more concerned about economic matters than it had been in previous centuries.

I.e. nobility (and also town / village levies) lost its former combat value - especially compared to professional mercenary soldiers.

Heavy cavalry was already somewhat obsolete way before the Hussite Wars. In the 1100s and 1200s, an entire battle was decided by the superior cavalry very frequently (e.g. Bouvines). The death knell for that was at first the introduction of the English longbow, which did a number upon the French heavy cavalry at Crécy and Poitiers. So after that, the French began using their cavalry more for maneuverability than for their power alone (what won Patay for them in 1429). For this, a full set of expensive plate armor isn't necessary; before, nobility filled this role largely because they could afford it (and secondarily because they had plenty of free time to practice horsemanship, something that couldn't be said about most peasants). But it was more practicable to have mercenaries for this role. All of that was heavily accentuated in Castillon due to the fact that no longer was it necessary to have an elite longbow bloc in order to crush cavalry charges, it could be done by average mercenaries using artillery. 1453 represents the culmination of a pre-existing trend.
 
Heavy cavalry was already somewhat obsolete way before the Hussite Wars.

Heavy cavalry wasn't obsolete until late 19th century. Only the weapons it used and the way how it fought was evolving during centuries.

The death knell for that was at first the introduction of the English longbow, which did a number upon the French heavy cavalry at Crécy and Poitiers.

Nah, longbow was not able to stop a cavalry charge - not longbow alone. Longbow didn't play the main role at Crecy.

At Crecy the English had prepared in advance defensive positions, surrounded by palisades, ditches, wires and pitfalls. In front of their positions also czośniki / Krähenfuß (forgot the English word) were scattered:

http://stelkerowyblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/jak-zrobic-czosniki-cz2.html

German word for czośniki is Krähenfuß: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krähenfuß

And in addition to longbowmen the English had knights who fought dismounted and from behind field fortifications in those battles. Against prepared in advance, strong field fortifications - such as those at Crecy - attacking cavalry has a very hard time (and attacking infantry also has a hard time against them), but that was mainly stupid usage of their own cavalry by the French commanders which won those battles for the English, not longbow.

For this, a full set of expensive plate armor isn't necessary;

A full set of expensive plate armor became necessary again when gunpowder weapons became widespread, to protect against balls fired by those weapons (see for example Gottfried Heinrich von Pappenheim's Cuirassiers during the 30 Years War or thick breastplates of Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars).

You have also examples of such heavily armored cavalry during the civil war in England.

This English guy is famous for being repeatedly shot by muskets, stabbed by pikes, cut by swords - and surviving all of that thanks to his armor:



He was a commander of a unit of Cuirassiers (fighting for the Parliamentarian side) of course.

nobility filled this role largely because they could afford it (and secondarily because they had plenty of free time to practice horsemanship,

Gradually as economic changes progressed (no matter which way - towards Capitalism or towards Folwark - because both involved increased, mass production - only using different methods of increasing it) nobility started to be more busy with economic (and often also cultural or scientific) matters and started to have much less time for military matters. That was during the 15th - 17th centuries - the process of decline of noble knighthood class.

In 16th and 17th centuries many countries still used Levy En Masse in emergency cases - but combat value of that Levy En Masse differed greatly depending on region from which it was called to arms. Polish nobility from regions such as Greater Poland - which by year 1650 hadn't seen any major war for the last 200 years (since 1460) - was of minimal combat value. On the other hand Noble Levy En Masse from the south-eastern regions of Poland - which had to resist almost constant raids of Crimean Tatars and rebellions of Cossacks and peasantry - included people who were very experienced and skilled in warfare.

But it was more practicable to have mercenaries for this role.

If you no longer have enough of experienced warriors who can serve for no money (or for less money than mercenaries) - then surely.

Plus it is a fact that "standing" armies of mercenaries are much better for garrisoning fortifications than "seasonal" troops.

All of that was heavily accentuated in Castillon due to the fact that no longer was it necessary to have an elite longbow bloc in order to crush cavalry charges, it could be done by average mercenaries using artillery.

Artillery can stop a cavalry charge only under favourable conditions or when amassed in great number against not-so-great number of cavalry.

And at Castillon there was a huge concentration of artillery guns. To amass such a number of guns on one battlefield was a terribly expensive thing. Artillery was much more expensive than even the most elite heavy cavalry. One shot from a bombard in 15th century was worth as much money as 10 cows.
 
Top Bottom