Infantry in the Middle Ages

Infantrymen at the Battle of Aljubarrota, 1385

Infantry in the Middle Ages were soldiers who fought on foot during the Middle Ages. They were frequently part of a specialised division such as the pikemen, crossbowmen and longbowmen. Throughout much of the Middle Ages, cavalry, particularly the knights, were dominant on the battlefield, but towards the end of the era the infantry forces achieved primacy.

Cost and recruitment: the growth of infantry

Constant sieges, expeditions and campaigns in the Medieval period, combined with growing costs, caused an expansion of infantry forces such as pikemen, archers and siege engineers.

The rising costs of war. In the medieval period a dominant cavalry elite ruled, but this began to slowly break down as the years passed. The Black Death in the 13th century swept through Europe creating devastating losses but also causing manpower shortages. This encouraged more economical use of available manpower, and the infantry man was much cheaper to outfit and maintain than the aristocratic knight. The Crusade era also saw a rise in the importance of infantry, and required large numbers of men and material to be organized for distant battlefields. Such expeditions were part of the growing number of sieges, disputes and campaigns throughout the 13th and 14th centuries that greatly increased the cost of warfare for medieval regimes. The relatively inexpensiveness of the infantryman, and shortages of manpower provided incentives for expanding their use.

Recruitment. The most common infantry throughout the early medieval period were peasants and commoners who were obliged to fight for the local lord, due to their place in the feudal system. They were usually unarmored and fought either with simple agricultural tools such as axes, forks and flails, or with a spear and shield. In some circumstances they were expected to bring and maintain their own equipment. At other times they were outfitted by the lord or king they fought for. These men were essentially conscripts and as such their discipline, morale and fighting ability varied greatly. Generally those fighting to protect their homeland were far more motivated than those that were fighting abroad. As the Medieval period progressed however with its constant warfare, this pattern began to change, The growth of urban centers opened up new sources of infantry recruits, particularly men with skills in fighting. The era saw the expansion of free mercenary forces, unbound to any medieval lord. The Swiss pikeman and the Italian condorotierre are two of the best known examples of this new class of fighting man. The expanded campaigns, castle-building and sieges of the era also saw greater use of household troops, often bodyguards of the elite, with a variety of useful skills. These were cheaper to recruit and maintain than the heavy expense of knights and all their trappings. Siege warfare in particular required large bodies of troops in the field, for extended periods of time, including numerous specialists. The early days of peasant levies became unsustainable. As more elites turned to infantry, their opponents had to keep pace, leading to additional increases in foot troops. To obtain the best fighting men, elites had to make provision for their regular payment and supply. As one history of medieval warfare notes:

"The rising importance of foot troops, thus, brought not only the opportunity but also the need to expand armies substantially. Thus as early as the late thirteenth century, we can observe Edward I campaigning at the head of armies incorporating tend of thousands of paid archers and spearmen.. This represented a major change in approaches to recruitment, organization, and above all pay."

Infantry versus cavalry

In the medieval period, the mounted warrior held sway for an extended time. Typically heavily armoured, well motivated and mounted on powerful, specially bred horses, the mounted knight represented a formidable force, which was used to effect against more lightly armoured troops. Since only the noble classes could afford the expense of knightly warfare, the supremacy of the mounted cavalryman was associated with the hierarchal structure of Medieval times, particularly feudalism. As the period progressed however, the once despised commoner began to come into his own, eventually displacing the armored chevalier. The crusades offer an illustration of the growing recognition of the need for infantry. Against the superb mounted foes of Islam, infantry forces (bowmen, pikemen and siege engineers) were of vital importance. Archers for example were essential in holding the fast-moving Muslim cavlary at bay- suppressing their firepower, and allowing the armored knights to mount successful counter-attacks. Pikemen were important in screening the flanks of the Christian forces, always vulnerble to assault by the Turkish horsemen. Siege engineers and labor were also valuable in undettaking atacks aginst cities and fortified positions.

Tactically there were only two ways for infantry to beat cavalry in an open field battle: firepower and mass. Firepower could be provided by swarms of missiles. Mass could be provided by a tightly packed phalanx of men. Such tactics were long-established; the Romans used missile troops such as slingers, and the core infantry learned to deal with swarming enemy cavalrymen by forming a hollow square fenced with a solid hedge of iron pila (large javelins). Alexander the Great combined both methods in his clashes with the Asiatic horseman of Persia and India, screening his central infantry phalanx with slingers, archers and javelin-men, before unleashing his cavalry against the enemy. Both mass and firepower could be aided by a good tactical position, such as on a hill or on ruogh terrain, where enemy cavalry would ahve trouble maneuvering.

These ancient lessons were relearned in the Medieval period, both in the Crusades, and in the continued operations of forces like the Flemish footman and particularly the Swiss Pikeman and the English Longbowman. Agains Saladin;s light cavalry at Jaffa (c, 1192) during the Crusades, Richard of England drew up a line of speamen, kneeling on the ground with spear planted in front, forming a hedge of steel against the charging enemy horsemen. Behind the spear wall, crossbowmen stood ready, with asistants helpoing to reload. The Muslim armies attqcked but the combined firepower of the archers and the steadiness of the wall of spears held. Once the Muslims pulled back, Richard ordered his armored knights forward, and Saladin withdrew. At the battle of Courtrai in 1302, the detemrined Flemish infanty staked out a good position on advantageousground (cut up with streams and ditches) and stood firm against the cavalry charge of the French nobles using their pikes and wooden Goedendag a combination spear and club. The French charge was stopped and the Flemish infantry then moved forward to liquidate the opposition. At bannockburn, the Scot fighters dug numerous pits to foil the English cavalry, blunted the English advance, then counterattacked with their pike army to soundly defeat their opponents.These and other example illustrate the importance of trained infantry, but the dominance of the footman did not come overnight. Both cavalryman and infanbtryman continued to operate for long periods side by side throughout the Medieval period.

Types of infantry forces

The Swiss pikemen

Pikemen at the Battle of Sempach, 1386

Main article: Pike square

The use of long pikes and densely packed foot troops was not uncommon during the Middle Ages. The Flemish footmen at the Battle of Courtrai, for example, as shown above, met and overcame the French knights circa 1302, and the Scots occasionally used the technique against the English during the Wars of Scottish Independence. However, it was the Swiss that brought infantry and pike tactics to an extremely high standard.

Morale, mobility and motivation. Rather than reluctant peasant levies dragooned into service by the local lords, the Swiss often fought as volunteer mercenaries for pay throughout Europe. Historical records indicate that the hard-marching Swiss pikemen managed to keep pace with cavalry units at times, if only in the confined terrain of the Alpine regions. Such mobility is outstanding but not unknown among foot soldiers. Roman records of operations against the Germanic barbarians show enemy infantrymen trotting with cavalry, sometimes resting their hands on the horses for support. Centuries later, the fast moving Zulu impis in Southern Africa made their mark, reputedly achieving an outstanding march rate of 50 miles per day. Using their mobility, the Swiss were frequently able to overcome contemporary mounted or infantry forces. Swiss pikemen were also generally known as highly motivated, tough-minded soldiers, with little respect for knightly trappings. In several historical accounts, the Swiss refused to retreat and stood and fought to the last man, even when greatly outnumbered, or facing a hopeless outcome.

Weapons and equipment. The Swiss utilized more effective versions of pike weapons, including the use of cutting blades and hooks (the halberd). These were excellent for dealing with mounted assaults. Rather than simply meet a lance, a cavalryman facing the Swiss could expect to deal with sharp points and slashing blows that could cleave his armor. Some pikes had hooks that coukd drag an enemy horseman from his mount. Pike weapons were considered "unchivalrous" by some of the knightly class, but the practical Swiss had litle concern for such sentiments. Pike weapons were sometimes mixed in combat, with thrusting spearmen in the front franks, and slashing halberd men deployed further back, after the thrusters had delivered the initial shock treatment. The Swiss wore little armor, unlike the ancient phalanx warriors of old, dispensing with greaves or shield, and donning only a helmet and a relatively light reinforced corselet.

Maneuver and formations. In numerous battles prior to the rise of the Swiss, it was not uncommon for pikemen to group together and await a mounted attack. Such an approach is sensible in certain circumstances, particularly if the phalanx occupies a strong position secured by terrain features. The downside is that it allows the attacking force more initiative. At the Battle of Falkirk, the Scots pikemen managed to hold off their cavalry opponents, but were caught in a static position, providing targets for the English longbow. The Swiss, though by no means the creators of pike tactics, improved on them by adding flexible formations and aggressive manoeuvre.

A typical pike force was divided into three sections or columns. The Swiss were flexible in their dispositions – each section could operate independently or combine with others for mutual support. They could form a hollow square for all round defence. They could advance in echelon or in a triangular "wedge" assault. They could manoeuvre to mount wing attacks – with one column pinning the foe centrally, while a second echelon struck the flanks They could group in depth on a strong natural position like a hill. Even more disconcerting to their opponents, the Swiss attacked and manoeuvred aggressively. They did not await the mounted men, but themselves took the initiative, forcing their opponents to respond to their moves. It was a formula that brought them much battlefield success.

The famous Swiss hollow square provided for a vanguard group of blademen using slashing halberds or two-handed swords to break the front of cavalry formations. Bowmen and crossbowmen sometines preceded the main body also as to provide missle cover, and similar contingents protected the flanks. The main force of pikemen advanced behind this screen. Battle was bloody and direct, and the Swiss killed any opponent regardless of knightlyt status. At the battle of Murten in the 1477, the Swiss demonstrated that the square was not a static formation but could be used aggressively. Deployment of the vnagiard, main body and rearguard was staggered in echelon, massing 10,000 men in a very small area (60 by 60 meters). The opposition was liquidated.

Effectiveness of the Swiss. The Swiss won a series of spectacular victories throughout Europe, helping to bring down the feudal order over the time, including victories at Morgarten, Laupen, Sempach, and Granson. In some engagements the Swiss phalanx included crossbowmen, giving the formation a missile stand-off capability. Such was their effectiveness, that between 1450 and 1550 every leading prince in Europe either hired Swiss pikemen, or emulated their tactics and weapons (such as the German Landsknecht). Even the Swiss however were not invoncible. They could be beaten when conftornted with a flexible force of swordsmen (as almost happened at Arbedo in 1422) and the advent of firearms made the hitherto unbreakable Swiss square extremely vulnerable.

The English Longbowman

Archers at the Battle of Poitiers, 1356

Main article: English longbow

The English longbowman brought a new effectiveness to European battlefields, not hitherto known widely for native archery. Also unusual was the type of bow used. Whereas Asian forces typically relied on the powerful multi-piece, multi-layered composite bow, the English relied on the single-piece longbow which delivered a stinging warhead of respectable range and punch.

Longbows and archers. In the British Isles, bows have been known from ancient times, but it was among the tribal Welsh that proficiency in use and construction became highly developed. Using their bows, the Welsh forces took a heavy toll on the English invaders of their lands. Adapted by the English, the longbow was nevertheless a difficult weapon to master, requiring long years of use and practice. Even bow construction was extended, sometimes taking as much as 4 years for seasoned staves to be prepared and shaped for final deployment. A skilled longbowman could shoot 12 arrows a minute, a rate of fire superior to competing weapons like the crossbow or early gunpowder weapons. The nearest competitor to the longbow was the much more expensive crossbow or Arbalest, used often by urban militias and mercenary forces. It required less training but lacked the range of 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.

The longbow on the battlefield. Longbowmen were used to great 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 Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. Against mounted enemies, as at Crecy, the bowmen dug a defensive position defended with staves, and unleashed clouds of arrows into the ranks of knights and men-at-arms. Difficult to deploy in a thrusting mobile offensive, the longbow was best used in a defensive configuration. Against mounted opponents or other infantry the ranks of the bowmen were extended in thin lines and protected and screened by pits (as at Bannockburn), staves (as at Crecy) or trenches elsewhere. Sometimes the bowmen were deployed in a shallow "W", enabling them to trap and enfilade their foes.

The crossbowman

While the famous English longbowman is better known in popular imagination, the missle troops that caused the most damage in the medieval era was the crossbowmen. The Catholic church tried to outlaw this effective weapon, which had an effective range of 370-500 meters. The corssbow was constructed initially of wood with steel gradually taking over. It shot metal bolts that could piercemost medieval armor. The advantage of the corssbowman was that he did not need extended or expensive training, and crossbows could be maintgained and deployed with less toruble. It had a complex winding menchanism which meant a much slower rate of fire than the longbow bow. A longbowman coudl release six shafts inthe tinme it took the corssbowman to release one bolt.

This long reload time left the crossbowman vulnerable and exposed. Bowmen often worked with an assistant to help reloading, who was also armed with a soear and a very large shield to provide cover for the archer as he relaoded. The best crossbowmen were considered to come from Genoa in Italy, and parts of Spain and nearby adjoining area. Corssbowmen were often a large compinent in medieval armies, and were considered na elite unit, with important responsibilities. They generally opened a battle with a cloud of bolts, or manuevered to attack the flanks. They were considered so valuable, that in Spain corssbowmen were considered in rank equivalent to a cavalryman.

Other troops

The large numberof seiges durin the medieval era called for huge numbersof infantry in the field, both in defence and in attack. Aside from labor units to construct defensive or offensive works, several specialists were deployed such as artillerymen, engineers and miners. Strongly fortified castles were ahrd to overcome. The simplest most effective method was blockade and starvation. Artillery in the form of of catapault, siege engines and later gunpowder weapons played an important role in reducing fortifed postions. Mining beneath walls, shoring up the tunnell then clapsing it was also used. Denenders employed counter-tactics- using their own artillery, missile weapons, and cointer mines against attacking forces. Against sieges cavalry men were not as valuable as footmen, and a large number of such troops was also used in the construction of fortifications. Frre mercenary forces such as the condorottiere generally attempted to defeat their foes in open field battle or maneuver, but also aprticipated in seiges, adding to the specialist ranks that bolstered the growing dominance of infantry.

Supremacy of the infantry

Taken together, the mass of the pike and the firepower of the bow put an end to the dominance of cavalry on the European scene, and restored the balance in favor of the once-despised foot soldier. Cavalry was to continue to play a significant role on into the 19th century, particularly in pursuit and reconnaissance operations. It was the foot-soldier however that became decisive. Gunpowder weapons eventually were to provoke even more significant changes in the latter part of the medieval era, and against such lethal arms, the heavily armored cavalryman made an indifferent showing.

See also

• Medieval warfare
• Infantry

Other Sources

• Technology and War: From 2000 BC to Present, 1989, Martin Van Creveld
• The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the Rise of The West, 1988, Geoffrey Parker