MEDIEVAL WARFARE

BY ARTHUR C. HOWLAND

Professor of Medieval History and Director of the College Courses for Teachers

For our present purpose we may consider the political history of the Middle Ages as having passed through three separate phases, to each of which belonged a special method of waging war.

The first phase was characterized by the breaking up of the Roman Empire, the wanderings of barbarian tribes from the North across its territories, their settlement in chosen districts and the mutual relations of the Teutonic kingdoms thus established. This may be called the period of the tribal kingship, and extended from about the fifth to the ninth century.

The second phase of political life extended from about the ninth century to the close of the twelfth. The tribal kingdoms had disappeared, the Teutonic elements had become thoroughly amalgamated with the native Roman population and after an unsuccessful effort to restore the old Roman organization under the leadership of Charlemagne, the task was frankly abandoned and Europe fell apart into a multitude of little districts, each one a political unit under its feudal lord with nothing to link it to its neighbors save the fluctuating relationship of suzerain and vassal.

The third political phase of the Middle Ages, from about 1200 to the end of the period, is characterized by the rise and the early struggles of national states. The authority of the king, almost completely in eclipse in the preceding centuries, begins once more to assert itself. The sentiment of nationality slowly emerges as a bond of union among the people of the same country, and as a cause of hostility towards the inhabitants of other lands. Central government with a national administrative system slowly takes shape, and there begins

a gradual evolution of international relationships both in peace and in war.

In each of these periods warfare was carried on under different conditions, determined partly by the form of political organization, partly by the stage of civilization. Thus, in the first, we find whole tribes of barbarians moving from one region to another, occupying new homes among a sedentary native population and thereafter seeking to enlarge their territories by the conquest of neighbors who had located themselves in a similar manner. Armies were made up of all the free men of the tribe and there was a certain rough equality among the tribesmen, as may be seen from Gregory of Tour's story of the vase of Soissons. King Clovis and his Franks had captured the city and plundered the churches and other public buildings. Among the spoils was a certain beautiful vase highly prized by the bishop of Soissons who went to Clovis and begged that it might be returned to his church. The king promised to do what he could to restore it and at the division of the plunder by lot among the warriors asked to have the vase withdrawn from the general distribution and set aside especially for himself. Thereupon one of the soldiers raised his ax and shattered the vase to bits declaring with a loud voice that not even the king should have any share of the spoils except such as the lot had fairly assigned to him. This rough assertion of equality met with so much approval that the king dared raise no protest and it was not until a year later and upon pretext of a quite different offense that Clovis ventured to avenge himself on the insubordinate soldier. Such an incident shows how little of military discipline or control could be exercised over the barbarians of that day.

The wars of this first period, though fought on the soil of the Roman Empire, were waged mainly between rival Teutonic tribes and not against the Roman population. No doubt the tribesmen were cruel and insubordinate, but their ruthlessness seems to have been generally exercised against each other rather than against the Romans. Their treatment of the latter was milder and more humane than might have been

expected. This was due partly to the fact that they met with no opposition from the natives, who were unused to arms and were trained to passive obedience; and partly to a wise selfinterest on the part of the barbarians, who were seeking new homes and did not wish to destroy the population by whose labors they expected to be supported. The Romans were forced to divide their lands and their slaves with the conquerors, but lived beside them in peace and comparative security; and it was not long before the two races were thoroughly almagamated.

One exception is found to the mild treatment of the conquered people by their conquerors. That is in the island of Britain. Here, where Roman power had been last established, there was a population still warlike, whose spirit had been kept alive by the necessity of defense against Picts and Scots and Northern pirates. The native British put up a fierce fight against the invading Angles and Saxons and the land was swept clear. The policy of the invaders seems to have been to exterminate the British population and though they may not have succeeded wholly in accomplishing their purpose the native race left practically no traces in the land east of the valley of the Severn River. Many emigrated to Wales, to Cornwall and to Brittany on the other side of the channel, but in eastern and central England the natives were practically exterminated. What acts of nameless cruelty, what massacres of whole villages, what wasting of the countryside accompanied this process, no records have survived to inform us; but the bitter legacy of hatred that was left in the hearts of those British who made good their escape to the mountains of Wales is shown by the savage warfare they maintained for generations, and by the fact that for a hundred years and more the Christian Welsh made no effort to convert their heathen neighbors, preferring to have no friendly dealings with them either in this world or the next. Heaven would have lost its attractiveness to them if contaminated by the presence of the Germans.

Except in the case of Britain, however, the Teutonic occupation of the empire was accomplished with remarkably little

bloodshed and little indication of ill feeling between conqueror and conquered.

This first, or tribal, period of medieval warfare came to an end when the more civilized portions of Europe were again invaded by outside enemies. The first of these invaders were the Saracens who came from Spain and pouring over the Pyrenees spread devastation through the lands of Southern Gaul. Unlike most of the other enemies with whom the Frankish kings had hitherto fought the Moslem armies were mounted and moved rapidly from point to point. To meet and drive them back large forces made up of horsemen were required and Charles Martel secured these by seizing the Church lands and granting them to his nobles on condition that they should serve him with mounted followers. Thus an aristocratic cavalry force was introduced, for the ordinary man could not be expected to supply himself with a horse in addition to providing arms and serving without pay.

The Saracen invasions, however, were a passing danger, for once driven back they never again seriously threatened western Europe. What made the medieval warrior an hereditary aristocrat and created a class of professional fighting men superior to all other members of the community were the incursions and raids of the Norsemen, which continued for nearly two hundred years. These Norse attacks were unique in the history of Europe because of their suddenness and the impossibility of foretelling where they would occur. The Northmen came by sea and had the free choice of any point along the coast on which to make their landings. Appearing suddenly out of the mists, their long boats would be run up on the sands, the men would swarm out and plunder monastery or village and be away again beyond pursuit long before the local levies could gather to drive them off. Nothing like these unexpected raids was again to be seen until recent days when German submarines suddenly emerged from the waters off the same coasts and bombarded fishing villages and undefended watering places. Unlike the submarine, however, the Norse boats could proceed up the rivers and so penetrate far inland. When finally they hit upon the

plan of landing at some favorable point, collecting all the horses within reach, and riding deep into the country, there was scarcely a district of western Europe that was safe from sudden devastation.

In those days of slow communication no central authority could provide for defence against such dangers. Local organization must deal with the situation and so the king authorized each man to chose a lord whom he was to follow and fight under when called upon. But the Norsemen were splendid fighters being picked bands of well-armed professional pirates who had no hope of quarter if defeated. The common man, farmer or townsman, was no match for them. The task of defending the land fell upon men who, like the Norsemen, made a business of fighting. Three things, however, were necessary for successful defense. First, men must be provided with horses in order to gather quickly to check the plundering bands. Second, they must be equipped not only with the best arms but with defensive armor to enable them to stand up successfully against the enemy. And thirdly, fortifications were necessary as a refuge for the common people and as a point of resistance against unexpected attack, for the Norsemen, like other barbarians, had little skill in storming fortified places and small patience for a protracted siege. But horses and armor and castles cost money and only the well-to-do landowners could provide themselves with these things. Hence it was the rich who became the professional fighters and all others, even the freeman, if he lacked income enough for this, sank to a dependent condition. This is the military reason for the rise of feudalism.

Gradually Europe became able to defend herself against the Vikings and their devastations came to an end. But men who had thus found a way of protecting themselves against a foreign enemy by local organization were in a position to defy the authority of their own rulers, and the king's power practically disappeared. Kingdoms continued to exist in name but during the height of feudalism we can hardly speak of nations or states. Each noble was independent and a law unto himself save