The changing nature of warfare - Pearson · PDF file4 1.1 1350–1450: The age of the...

1415 1645

The Battle of Agincourt The Battle of Naseby

The changing nature of warfare

IntroductionThis part of your course looks at developments in warfare from 1350 to the present day. You will be asked to think about:

what changed in aspects of warfare such as weaponry, tactics, recruitment, • and the provisioning and movement of armies

what made those things change and why they changed at that particular • time; in particular, how society and technology changed warfare.

In this section of our study, you will learn about:

warfare from 1350 to 1700, the time of British archers at Agincourt and the • Battle of Naseby in the English Civil War

warfare from 1700 to1900, the time of the British victories at the Battle of • Waterloo and in the Crimean War

warfare from 1900 to the present day, including case studies on the First • World War and the First Gulf War of 1991.

Learning outcomesCopy to follow?

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 2 5/4/09 11:49:22

1815 1854 1914 1991

The Battle of Waterloo The Crimean War The First World War, The Gulf War

3


3

Activity

1 Draw your own version of the timeline below. Include all the information given from 1350 to the present day. But draw it larger.

2 During the rest of this course, as you read in more detail about changes during this time, add the key events to your timeline.

1350–1700

1900 to the present day

1700–1900

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 3 5/4/09 11:49:26

4

1.1 1350–1450: The age of the archer

4


The period from 1350 to1450 was a time of almost constant warfare across Europe. The biggest confl ict was a series of wars, from 1337 to 1453, between French and English called the Hundred Years’ War. The major battles were fought at Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt. Several other European countries, as far apart as Portugal and Scotland, were also involved.

But despite all this fi ghting, in many ways the period 1350–1450 was a period of slow, gradual development in warfare, not one of rapid change. For example, armies remained small. Throughout most of the Hundred Years’ War, the English army continued to number about 6,000 men.

Another feature of warfare that changed little between 1350 and 1450 was the mounted knight. Some knights adopted full sets armour during these years. But they were not very practical. The most common armour remained breast and back plates, a helmet with a visor, metal gauntlets and armour plates for legs and feet. Nor did the knight’s weapons change. He still fought with shield, sword, dagger, axe or lance. Some commanders developed better tactics for defending against cavalry charges during these years. For example, at the Battle of Crécy, in 1346, the English used ditches, archers and caltrops to slow the charging French knights. But knights remained an important part of armies at this time.

There was little change in the infantry between 1350 and 1450 either. Foot soldiers remained the majority of men in an army, and there was little change in the weapons they used for hand-to-

hand combat – the shield, sword, dagger, axe and mace. Some infantry were pike men. The pike – a three- to six-metre wooden pole with a metal tip – remained the main barrier against cavalry charges. Other infantrymen were archers. Bows and crossbows continued to be used to weaken opposing armies by showering them with arrows before attacking them. Most foot soldiers remained in padded jackets and chain mail as protection, since plate armour was expensive and heavy.

Copy to follow...Learning outcomesBy the end of this topic you should be able to:

• describe the soldiers, weapons and fi ghting typical between 1350 and 1450

• explain the changes taking place in warfare during this period

• explain the impact of the longbow on warfare.

Activities

1 Using the text and picture on this page: a) list the types of soldiers that made up a

typical army in 1350 b) list the weapons and protective clothing they

used c) use the picture on this page to fi nd as many of

these weapons and protective clothes as you can.

2 Make lists of things that: a) changed between 1350 and 1450 b) remained unchanged over the same period.Do your lists suggest that 1350–1450 was a time of change or continuity?

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 4 5/4/09 11:49:27

5

The changing nature of warfare c.1350–c.1700

A battle scene from about 1450. Most battles at this time involved a mixture of different kinds of troops. Most battles were decided by hand-to-hand combat, using swords, daggers, axes and clubs. This made warfare particularly brutal at this time.

Something else about warfare that remained much the same between 1350 and 1450 was that it remained limited warfare. Armies were small; they were almost like rulers’ personal possessions. For example, many kings used their armies in disputes with other ruling families and led their own armies into battle.

Campaigns were short and had limited aims. Sometimes armies invaded enemy territory in search of riches rather than to conquer land. They would pillage the countryside or capture enemy knights and hold them for ransom. At the Battle of Poitiers, in 1356, King Edward’s English army killed or wounded 2,000 Frenchmen. But they also captured 2,000, including the French king, a prince, 40 members of the French aristocracy and over 100 French knights. The English demanded a sum twice the annual tax revenue of France just for the return of their king.

A captured knight was part of the bounty of war. Here, peasants have isolated a knight. They are killing his horse, after which the weight of his armour will make it impossible for him to escape.

As the bodies of the enemy lay on the ground, soldiers pillage their baggage train, taking their livestock and sharing out their money. It was normal, too, for victorious soldiers to steal booty from the dead on the battlefi eld, taking their weapons, their clothing and their money.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 5 5/4/09 11:49:30

6

The changing nature of warfareThe changing nature of warfare

A soldier’s feudal duty to his lord was limited to • about 45 days’ service – possibly long enough to fi ght off an invasion but not for a campaign overseas or for a prolonged siege.

Feudal armies were limited in size. By 1350, • English kings could only call upon about 6,000 feudal knights.

And many of these knights claimed that their • feudal duty was to defend the realm and refused to go on overseas campaigns.

Another problem was training. Young noblemen • expected to fi ght as knights, so they took part in practice fi ghts and jousting tournaments. And all young freemen were encouraged to practise archery. But soldiers never came together for formal training. So weapon skills were limited and battlefi eld tactics had to be very simple.

Worse still, feudal knights were independent, • wealthy men who did not take well to military discipline. Some, especially in France, saw warfare as an exercise in chivalry where doing what was honourable was more important than doing what was best.

Finally, feudal armies provided their own • weapons, so mounted knights were well armed and protected. But the quality of arms and protection in the infantry was very varied.

So, as in earlier medieval times, between 1350 and 1450 battles were often avoided rather than actively sought. Armies shadowed each other, skirmishing perhaps and looking for an advantage, but avoiding battle. Neither Edward III at Crécy nor Henry V at Agincourt planned those battles. They were outmanoeuvred and forced to fi ght. The battles occurred only when the English refused to pay a ransom for their safe escape.

Finally, two other aspects of warfare remained much the same.

The most dangerous time for infantry continued • to be the retreat. In disorganised fl ight, they were at the mercy of mounted horseman. At Poitiers, Edward used the same feigned retreat that had served William the Conqueror so well at the Battle of Hastings.

And • sieges of important towns continued to be more common than fi ghting battles. This was because when an army invaded enemy land, it had to capture all the nearby towns. If it didn’t, the enemy could launch attacks on it from safe positions behind town walls.

Recruitment: from feudal armies to mercenariesBut some things were changing between 1350 and 1450. One change was in recruitment. At the start of the Middle Ages, armies had been recruited under the feudal system.

In feudal society, a ruler gave land to his most • powerful supporters, and in exchange these supporters fought in his army, normally as mounted knights.

The feudal system also provided infantry for the • army. Under the Assize of Arms, passed in 1181, all poor English freemen had a duty to serve in the king’s army.

All those who served provided whatever weapons • they could supply.

So in most of Europe the feudal society had shaped the way that armies were recruited and armed. But by 1350 it was clear that there were problems with feudal armies.

Two knights jousting in about 1400

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 6 5/4/09 11:49:32

7

The changing nature of warfare c.1350–c.1700

The longbowThe longbow was not new. Archery, using all kinds of bows, had been a feature of warfare since classical times. However, the most common form of bow in early medieval Europe had been a small bow of about 50 centimetres in length with an effective range of about 100 metres. But longbows, of about two metres in length, started to become a signifi cant feature of armies from about 1300. It is thought that Edward I of England noticed them being used by Welsh armies and incorporated them into his own forces.

Rulers were frustrated by these limitations, so armies began to change. By 1350, many rulers were wealthy enough to employ mercenaries to supplement feudal armies.

But mercenaries were introduced at different rates across Europe.

In England, kings often accepted payment of • money in exchange for military service. This system was called scutage and meant that English kings had money to pay for mercenaries.

And England was a more centralised state • than other European powers, so English kings received more taxes – which they also spent on mercenaries. In 1415, for example, King Henry V of England raised soldiers for his Agincourt campaign by employing commanders and their soldiers on a contract or indenture. In contrast, most of the French army that Henry fought in this campaign were knights serving their feudal duties.

So 1350 to 1450 was a time of transition. Feudal armies were changing into armies of mercenaries paid for the duration of campaigns. But they were still not permanent armies.

And there was one other signifi cant change in warfare during the period 1350–1450. This was the longbow.

A siege in about 1400. This picture tells the story of a siege. On the right, an army weakens the defences with arrows and by undermining the walls. Then, in the centre, they attack. Finally, on the right, they negotiate a surrender.

Activities

1 On separate slips of paper, write defi nitions for booty, pillage and ransom. Pass them to someone sitting near you. See if they can correctly identify each one.

2 What was limited warfare?3 What were disadvantages of feudal armies?4 What did rulers do to get round these problems?

This is a modern picture of 15th-century archers. We must take care when using earlier pictures. Some, particularly those from the 19th century, tend to give us unrealistic, rather romantic pictures of archers dressed in armour, which they rarely used.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 7 5/4/09 11:49:34

The longbow was made from yew and was extremely hard to use. The bowstring was drawn to the ear, not the chest and then the bow pushed away from the body until the bow arm was straight. It had a range of 400 metres and, in the right hands, was accurate over 250 metres. A practised archer could release up to 15 arrows per minute. This compared to two or three for the crossbow. More importantly, the archer could use arrows with seven types of arrowhead, some of which would pierce plate armour. Contemporary records describe mounted soldiers pinned to their mounts by arrows that had gone through armour, chain mail, flesh and bone and into the saddle.

One change caused by the longbow was that it speeded up the use of mercenaries. This was because the longbow required training. Ideally, archers needed to develop strength and accuracy from constant training and they were most effective in groups. Mercenaries could be trained in units of 100 men – in ranks of 10 x 10 – to fire and reload in unison on the command of their centenaur. They could land a shower of arrows on a small area, and this concentration of fire had deadly effect.

The impact of the archerAnother change caused by the longbow was the change in the way the English army fought. By the time of the Hundred Years’ War the longbow was at the heart of the army. Of the 12,000 English infantry in the victory over the French at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, two-thirds were archers. And the longbow changed the tactics used on the battlefield. In early medieval times, the charging knight was the dominant force. By 1350, a combination of caltrops, pikes, stakes and ditches had reduced the power of the cavalry charge. The longbow accelerated this change. From behind protective shields of pikes, archers could bring down knights or their horses in large numbers. The fallen bodies brought down still more. Archers could then put down their bows and join in hand-to-hand combat – hoping to capture the unhorsed knights, or finish them off with daggers, swords, axes or mallets. So the longbow weakened the power of the mounted knight.

Archers, used together with mounted knights and pikes in a battle in 1473. This is a 19th-century picture.

If the defenders were well trained and well disciplined, it was difficult for attackers to defeat them. Having weakened an assault by the massive use of arrows, a defending army could take the initiative against a demoralised enemy, with cavalry to pursue those who fled the battlefield.

Warfare and societyWe have seen how the way in which society is organised can shape how wars are fought. The feudal system, for example, produced small armies dominated by noble knights.

But sometimes changes in warfare change society. The rise of the longbow and the decline of the mounted knight during the Hundred Years’ War changed society.

For example, the longbow changed the politics of society. For centuries under the feudal system, rulers had relied upon the support of the nobles who served as mounted knights. But in the

Overmatter from pages 4-7

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 6 5/4/09 11:49:35

Hundred Years’ War, the dominant weapon in the army became the longbow, which was not the weapon of nobles: it was the weapon of the common man, hired as a mercenary. For power and security, the king now depended on mercenaries and freemen, not the nobility.

The longbow also changed the economics of society. Of Henry V’s 6,000-strong English army at Agincourt, 5,000 were archers. Many of them were recruited from the English yeomanry (this was the class of farmers who owned small farms). The rewards for English archers were considerable. After battles such as Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt, many yeomen came home with 100,000 ducats from pay, booty and ransom. This was a considerable sum – a fortune in medieval terms. Such large sums of money made the yeomanry into a class of much more prosperous farmers.

One other effect of the longbow and the decline of the mounted knight was the end of the age of chivalry. Histories and ballads of the early Middle Ages describe warfare as face-to-face combat by wealthy men of honour, fi ghting to a noble code. How far that picture was ever true is open to doubt. But the nobility mourned the end of the age of the mounted knight. They saw little chivalry in fi ring arrows into a far off enemy and no honour in death from an arrow, shot from afar by a faceless archer from behind a sea of infantry.

Boom!This period of slow development in warfare came to an end after 1450. The change was caused by gunpowder. The Battle of Castillon ended the Hundred Years’ War – and it was won by cannon fi re. It signalled the end of a period of gradual transition and the start of a period of more rapid change.

Activities

1 Take a vote in class about what made the longbow so important on the battlefi eld:

a) power of fi re b) accuracy of fi re c) concentration of fi re?Debate the outcome of the vote.Challenge

1 Do you think that the longbow counts as: a) a development (something that evolves from

something else) or b) a change (something different from what

went before) in the history of warfare?

Explain why the longbow had an important effect upon warfare 1350–1450. (9 marks)

Basic, Level 1 (1–3 marksAnswer is accurate, but gives little detail.

Good, Level 2 (4–6 marks).Answer gives details about the longbow, but leaves its impact on warfare unexplained.

Excellent, Level 3 (7–9 marks) Answer gives details of the use of the longbow, explaining its impact and how this changed battles and armies.

Build Better Answers

The period 1350–1450 was a time of gradual change in warfare.

The longbow was an important development in weapons and it caused changes in warfare in society.

Summary


M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 7 5/4/09 11:49:36

1.2 1415: The Agincourt campaign and Henry V

8


The Agincourt campaign of 1415 was part of the Hundred Years’ War, which was, in fact, several wars between England and France stretching from 1337 to 1453. When Henry V became king of England in 1413, he thought he could conquer land in northern France for England.

The siege of Harfl eurIn August 1415 Henry invaded France with an army of about 8,000 and besieged the port of Harfl eur in Normandy. The town was defended by about 400 soldiers. The siege followed the familiar pattern of encirclement, battery, attack, negotiation and ransom.

First, Henry surrounded the town with his troops. A French convoy carrying food and ammunition for the town was captured. Next, the walls were pounded by Henry’s twelve cannon and some much more old-fashioned medieval artillery. Henry prepared to send his soldiers to attack and scale the walls. But the town’s commanders asked for a deal. They would surrender the town in exchange for ransom (payment of money). Any townspeople who were prepared to swear allegiance to Henry were allowed to remain; the rest were ordered to depart.

The siege had lasted fi ve weeks. Henry rested his troops. During the siege, they had suffered dysentery (a disease then called ‘the bloody fl ux’). But these delays meant that the campaigning season was coming to an end. So Henry decided to leave a small garrison in the town and take the rest of his army to winter in the town of Calais, at that time an

English stronghold. His war council told him to wait for ships and go by sea; Henry ignored the council’s advice and took the more risky land route.

Copy to follow...Learning outcomesBy the end of this topic you should be able to:

• describe the Agincourt Campaign and the role of Henry V

• recognise features of w arfare that were typical from 1350 to 1450.

<insert 904424_ph_011 near the paras on the siege of har� eur and Please put the following

labels on the picture:><labels start>mounted knight

archer

pikeman

longbow

pike

sword

armour

The Battle of AgincourtDuring the siege of Harfl eur, the French had gathered a large army, led by Charles d’Albret, which shadowed Henry’s movements, trying to force him into a battle. They eventually trapped the English in a narrow stretch of recently ploughed land between two woods. The French army was between Henry and Calais. His retreat was blocked by the fortifi ed town of Hesdin.

Henry V’s army outside Harfl eur. Notice the features of warfare shown.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 8 5/4/09 11:49:36

9


and the French line, overcrowded and stumbling on bodies, was forced back.

Heralds were sent to ask the French if they were conceding. The answer came back that they were. The battle had lasted only about three hours.

The English seem to have suffered no more than 500 deaths. Sources at the time estimate French losses at between 2,000 and 11,000, including their commander. About 1,500 noblemen were taken prisoner for ransom.

The decisive factors seem to have been:

decisions made by French and English • commanders

the indiscipline of the French knights• the impact of the English longbow archers.•

Henry’s army had marched 250 miles in two weeks in bad weather. Harassed by the French, they had managed to fi nd little food. They were hungry and weak from marching and dysentery. He had 6,000 men; 5,000 were longbow archers. The French army had 20,000 to 30,000 men; half were well-armed nobles, many of them mounted. The French knights were confi dent – they had little respect for the English archers, who were mainly from the lower classes.

Henry would have preferred to have avoided a battle. But he knew that the longer he delayed, the stronger the French would become. On 25 October, he was forced to stand and fi ght.

The land between the armies was heavy clay, diffi cult ground for cavalry. French knights made it worse by exercising horses there on the night before the battle, churning up the ground.

Henry positioned his army where the gap between the woods was narrowest – about 750 metres. He had angled stakes dug into the ground to protect against cavalry. He then sent archers to hide in the trees and fi re into the French lines. This was called ‘galling’; the French regarded it as unchivalrous. It made them angry and caused them to make a mistake. A small number of the French cavalry, about 450, lost discipline and made a sudden charge at the English lines. The infantry moved up behind them.

When the French cavalry was about 200 metres away, English archers fi red in volleys. Wounded horses fell or panicked, careering into others. The charge failed and their retreat slowed down the infantry. Slogging through the mud, some clad in heavy armour, the French infantry were exposed to English arrows. The bodies of fallen men slowed their advance still more.

When hand-to-hand fi ghting began, the narrow battlefront made the extra French troops useless. The French monk of St Denis wrote: ‘The fi rst wave of about 5,000 men was so tightly packed that the third rank could not use their swords.’

Henry then attacked. His archers abandoned their bows and used hatchets and swords to attack from the fl anks. The English infantry pressed forward

A 19th-century painting of Agincourt. It shows a romantic image of the battle. But it does show features of warfare from the time, including mounted knights, archers, pike men, longbows, pikes, swords and armour. It even shows the narrow battlefi eld on ploughed land.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 9 5/4/09 11:49:38

The rest of the campaignThe Battle of Agincourt saved the English army, but Henry needed a series of successful sieges to consolidate his victory. The capture of French towns gave him military and political control of the surrounding countryside.

Activities

1 Make a list of the types of soldiers and weapons used during the Agincourt campaign.

2 Pages XX [4?] to XX [5?] describe warfare 1350–1450. In what ways were the siege of Harfl eur and the Battle of Agincourt typical of warfare at that time?

Challenge

3 Leadership was the most important factor in fi ghting battles 1350–1450. Judging by the Battle of Agincourt, how far do you agree with this statement?

The Agincourt campaign illustrates a number of typical features of warfare from 1350 to 1450.

Summary


Though Henry’s victory at Agincourt stands out, so did his successful sieges of Harfl eur, Falaise, Cherbourg and Rouen, which gave the English the control of Normandy.

Source: (The Cambridge History of Warfare, edited by Geoffrey Parker, p. 89)

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 9 5/4/09 11:49:39

1.3 1450: The age of gunpowder

10


CannonWhen set on fi re, a small amount of gunpowder releases gases that rapidly expand to over a thousand times their original size, with force powerful enough to propel cannonballs. The formula for gunpowder arrived in Europe from China during the 13th century. The fi rst known use of a cannon in Europe is recorded in Metz (now in northern France), in 1324.

But it took over 100 years for cannon to become signifi cant. This was because early cannon were more frightening than effective. At the Battle of Crécy in 1346, an observer wrote that the English ‘fi red off some cannons in order to frighten the enemy’. Cannon were so inaccurate that they could be used only against large targets, such as town walls. They also lacked power and had a range of only about 100 metres, which made them vulnerable to capture.

And there were frequent accidents; King James II of Scotland was killed by a cannon that exploded during a demonstration.

For 100 years cannon were used alongside traditional medieval artillery cannon, rather than replacing it. But slowly, after about 1450, improved technology allowed cannon to make a bigger impact.

Trunnions• were used with quadrants to calculate the elevation of the barrel.

Then specialist cannon were developed – such as • mortars and howitzers – that lobbed cannonballs on a high trajectory.

And there were massive long-distance cannon, • such as ‘Mad Margaret’, which had a barrel fi ve metres long and half a metre wide.

So cannon became important parts of every army.

The French town of Harfl eur resisted the siege of • Henry V’s English army for six weeks in 1415.

But in 1449 16 cannon reduced its walls to rubble • in only two weeks.

As the military commentator Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in about 1500, ‘No wall exists, however thick, that artillery cannot destroy in a few days.’

But even after 1450 there were problems.

Cannon were still • muzzle-loading, which was slow.

Transporting them to a siege was diffi cult. Even if • an army had just 50 siege guns, it took hundreds of vehicles and oxen to pull the guns and ammunition, and carry the men, food and fodder that went with them.

The changing face of warfare

Learning outcomesBy the end of this topic you should be able to:

• describe the gunpowder weapons that dominated warfare 1450–1700

• explain the impact that gunpowder weapons had on warfare.

A contemporary drawing showing cannon being used – by attackers and defenders – at the siege of Dublin in 1577. Notice the damage caused to the walls. Notice too that, even this late, gunpowder weapons are being used alongside much older weapons.

Fascinating factOne huge cannon used to attack Constantinople in 1453 was nine metres long. It � red stone balls weighing half a ton. But to transport it to Constantinople, gangs of prisoners had to be sent ahead to repair the roads, 50 carpenters were used to strengthen bridges, and 30 wagons had to be tied together to take its weight and were then pulled by

60 oxen.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 10 5/4/09 11:49:42

11

Field artilleryDespite these problems, cannon had changed siege warfare. The technology of cannons then further improved and changed warfare between armies on open battlefi elds. From about 1500, cannon makers began to produce fi eld guns. These were small cannon called light artillery that could be pulled around a battlefi eld by horses. This meant cannon were not just used against stationary targets, such as fortifi ed walls. They could be used against enemy infantry – together with another development of gunpowder weaponry, � rearms.

FirearmsThe fi rst effective fi rearms appeared in about 1450. These were matchlock muskets. They had a longer range than longbows, with frightening effect.

Musketeers could kill an enemy from 400 metres.• They could pierce armour from 200 metres. •

They weighed about two stones. The gunner • had to brace the weapon against his chest and balanced the barrel on a stick.

The smoke made aiming diffi cult. • Reloading was fraught with problems. Early • matchlocks took two minutes to reload. Slowly reloading under fi re took courage; it was easy for the musketeer to lower the barrel and lose the shot out of the barrel before fi ring; or to overcharge the weapon and knock himself out with the recoil.

By 1700 the technology had improved. Matchlocks were replaced by the more effi cient � intlock muskets. The fl intlock did not use a lighted match cord: a fl int made a spark, which lit the gunpowder. This changed the way fi rearms were used on the battlefi eld.

Flintlocks could be preloaded. So a soldier could • carry several pistols in his belt and fi re without reloading.

Dragoons• (soldiers on horseback) could be armed with pistols. This revived the cavalry as a powerful attacking force.


The matchlock had a slow-burning match cord held in a lever – a cock. When the trigger was pulled, the burning cord touched some gunpowder in a fl ash pan. This mini-explosion ignited the gun’s primary gunpowder charge in the breech of the gun, which propelled the bullet out of the barrel.

A musketeer pictured in the Drill Book for the Dutch army, issued in 1607.

And, unlike archers, musketeers did not tire during battle. So, muskets soon became common.

But at this stage, like cannon, they were used alongside more conventional weapons, such as bows and crossbows, not instead of them. There were many reasons.

The accuracy was poor at this stage.• They frequently misfi red. Manufacturing • techniques were unreliable and they were almost useless in damp weather.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 11 5/4/09 11:49:44

12


Arrow-shaped bastions on a 16th-century fort. These reduced the number of ‘fl at’ surfaces for the enemy to hit and gave defensive cannon overlapping fi elds of fi re and defensive fi ring lines along their walls.

So despite their limitations, cannon and fi rearms dominated battlefi elds after 1600. Warfare would never be the same again. As Robert Barret reported in 1598, ‘Then was then, and now is now. Wars are much altered since the fi ery weapons.’

Fascinating FactSome modern phrases come from musketeers. A mis� re was ‘just a � ash in the pan’ or ‘going o� at

half cock’.

Activities

1 On a timeline, plot the development of gunpowder weapons from 1200 to 1600.

2 What were the limitations of early gunpowder weapons?

3 What were their advantages?

The military impact of gunpowder weaponsOne effect of gunpowder weapons was to change siege warfare. Cannon attacks caused changes in the way towns were defended.

At fi rst towns protected themselves by putting • defensive cannon on their own walls. But these walls were tall and thin. Not only were they easy to hit, but even the vibration of the defenders’ cannon made them crack and fall.

So next, defenders strengthened walls with earth • banks in front and behind, to absorb the impact of cannon fi re.

But the best solution was to rebuild the walls. The • new design for fortifi cations involved short, thick walls, which were stronger and harder to hit. They also had arrow-shaped bastions (towers). Cannon inside these bastions could be used to bombard the attackers or to send protective fi re along the town or castle walls.

Sometimes, these defences were so effective that sieges became much longer again. To protect themselves from cannon fi re from the town walls, defenders might have to dig trenches around the town. The attacking troops could shelter in the trenches. They could also put their cannon in the

trenches and bombard towns for months, gradually weakening the defensive walls until they could be assaulted by infantry. We can clearly see a precedent here for the trenches of the First World War.

Another effect of gunpowder weapons was to speed up the decline of cavalry. Their charges were cut down by enemy muskets and fi eld artillery. Infantry dominated armies even more.

Another change caused by gunpowder weapons was the use of standardised equipment. Previously, soldiers could replace their weapons by stealing from bodies on the battlefi eld. Mixing swords or spears was unimportant; but once cannon and muskets became the weapons of war, it was vital that the whole army had standard issue. In Ireland in the 1640s, the English general Roger Boyle complained that he nearly lost one battle because the shot provided didn’t fi t his men’s muskets: ‘[Some men] were forced to cut their bullets, in which much time was lost [and] the bullets fl ew a less way.’

Gunpowder weapons also caused a switch from squares to lines. Throughout medieval times, infantry had attacked and defended by forming solid blocks of men, or ‘squares’. But, from about 1600, generals realised that lines of muskets were

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 12 5/4/09 11:49:46

13


better. At fi rst, they used ten lines of men. Each line would fi re, then retreat and reload, while the next rank came forward to fi re. This way, they achieved a constant volley of fi re. In the battles of the English Civil War, in the 1640s, artillery was mainly used in lines like this. From then onwards, together with fi eld artillery, lines of muskets dominated battlefi elds for centuries. The need for infantry to reload quickly under fi re increased the need for discipline and training.

Another change caused by gunpowder weapons was the end of the pike. Like the archer, the musketeer joined hand-to-hand combat when necessary. Musketeers therefore attached long knives or bayonets to their muskets, to turn them into thrusting weapons, just like a spear or a short pike. Pikes began to disappear as battlefi eld weapons.

The social impactGunpowder weapons increased the importance of the iron industry. This was because the security of countries gradually came to depend on their ability to produce muskets and cannon.

They also increased the cost of war. This was partly because of the cost of weapons. But another reason for the increased cost was that gunpowder weapons needed to be used by well-drilled, paid professional soldiers.

Gunpowder weapons horrifi ed society. This is a common effect of warfare. In earlier times people had been offended by crossbows and longbows; in later times, people would be horrifi ed by machine guns, bombs and atomic weapons. In the early days of gunpowder weapons, few people understood the chemistry by which metal balls or bullets shot instantly from the barrel of a gun to a distant target. Some said they were cowardly or the weapons of the devil. One writer said: ‘Blessed were the times which lacked the dreadful fury of diabolical artillery – whose inventor is now receiving the reward for his devilish invention in hell.’ This kind of feeling meant that troops sometimes mistreated captured musketeers: ‘… some stuffed captured cannoneers into the barrels of their own great guns and blasted them out or chopped off both their hands and pierced both eyes’ (quoted in Cassell’s History of Warfare).

For military leaders, gunpowder was a miracle weapon. In 1570, this painting, called ‘Gunpowder Production’, was commissioned by a wealthy nobleman.

For some people, gunpowder was the devil’s work. This woodcut from the 1500s shows the manufacture of gunpowder by wicked monks, assisted by strange demons

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 13 5/4/09 11:49:48

Activities

1 Make a list of the military changes caused by the development of gunpowder weapons. Which change was the most signifi cant?

2 Why were the social reactions to gunpowder weapons so varied?

Why did it take so long for gunpowder weapons to change how warfare was fought? (12 marks)

Basic, Level 1 (1–3 marks).Answer gives simple description of weaknesses of new weapons but little detail and no analysis of signifi cance.

Good, Level 2 (5–8 marks).Answer gives detailed description of weapons and weaknesses, but does not explain their signifi cance.

Excellent, Level 3 (9–12 marks). Answer explains signifi cance of weakness of new weapons, e.g. cannon used for attack AND defence, matchlocks slow to reload, etc.


• Using gunpowder created new weapons.

These weapons were so powerful that they

• changed warfare, and

• increased the need for professional soldiers.

Summary

Overmatter from p6

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 13 5/4/09 11:49:49

1.4 Army life 1350–1700

14


Size of armiesThe period 1350–1700 was a time of great change for armies. One obvious change was that armies became bigger. Whereas the English kings Harold at Hastings in 1066 and Henry V at Agincourt in 1415 both had armies of about 8,000 men, Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army, formed in 1645, was 22,000 strong.

Permanent armiesIn 1350, some soldiers were fulfi lling their feudal duty to support their lord and some soldiers were mercenaries – soldiers paid on a temporary basis as needed. As numbers of mercenaries increased, providing them became big business. The kings of England regularly increased the size of their armies by hiring troops from small European states.

But relying on foreign troops was risky. From about 1500, therefore, although mercenaries were still used, most countries began to develop large bodies of soldiers who were permanently employed by the state – known as standing armies.

These new permanent armies needed to be organised. From about 1550, Charles V of Spain was a pioneer. He was inspired by Roman legions and created regional regiments, giving each their own insignia, colours, military bands and medical teams. His regiments built up their own traditions and loyalty. From about 1600, other countries, including England, followed this example. Many regiments of the British Army, for example the Grenadier Guards, trace their history back to the 17th century.

UniformsPermanent armies led to uniforms, but only slowly.

Soldiers associated uniforms with servants. • Few countries were able to mass-produce tens of • thousands of identical uniforms.

Wear and tear made replacing uniforms very • expensive.

During the 1640s, troops led by Prince Rupert, commander of the English army, fought 62 skirmishes and 11 battles, marched hundreds of miles and often slept in the open. ‘The fact was that no 17th-century government possessed the level of organisation needed to care for its troops’ (Cassell’s World History of Warfare, p. 308). So it was easier for soldiers to provide their own clothes, from battlefi eld bodies if necessary, and for a while longer, all armies looked much the same. Soldiers of the French army wore some kind of blue hatband, or sash, the Dutch orange, and so on. But this was far from foolproof. During the English Civil War, at the Battle of Marston Moor, Sir Thomas Fairfax became stranded among the enemy, and, in his own words: ‘Removing the signal [a white scarf] from my hat I passed as one of their commanders.’

However, during the English Civil War, Parliament’s New Model Army adopted coats of red and white, and by 1700 the familiar red coat became the standard uniform for the English army.

ProvisionsAn army of 30,000 men needed 20 tons of bread and meat equivalent to 1,500 sheep – every day. Livestock was transported on the hoof, until it was eaten. But the fl our and ovens for 30,000 troops needed 250 carts and hundreds of horses and oxen to pull them. And, of course, the draft animals needed feeding too. When an army ran out of supplies, soldiers had to forage for food or steal from local people.

Learning outcomesBy the end of this topic you should be able to:

• explain how changes in warfare 1350–1700, such as the introduction of gunpowder weapons, affected armies and the lives of soldiers.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 14 5/4/09 11:49:49

15

Disease and medical treatmentIn wars before 1900, fi ve times more men died of disease than of battlefi eld injuries. Epidemics of diseases such as dysentery swept through armies. And troops often slept in the open on campaign. The New Model Army was not issued with tents until 1650, for example. Exposure to the elements caused even more illness. Despite these problems, medical treatment did not get a high priority. It was normal for there to be more bandsmen to provide marching music than medical staff to treat injured or sick soldiers.

To make matters worse, injuries from musket fi re were more likely to kill in 1700 than injuries from swords, pikes or arrows in 1350. Shot smashed bones drove fi lthy clothing into wounds, causing infection. Treatment for wounds was to scoop out fragments with unsterile instruments or bare fi ngers, to cauterise the wound with hot metal, melting blood vessels to prevent blood loss, and then to cover the wound with an ointment. Some ointments were useless but harmless, made with substances such as animal fat and rhubarb; others were deadly, containing excrement or mercury.

There was some progress. Ambroise Paré (1510–90) was an army surgeon. He found that the patients for whom he used no ointments at all recovered best. He also used ligatures to stem blood fl ow, invented new surgical instruments and even developed artifi cial limbs. He published his fi nding but general progress was very slow. Indeed, many injured soldiers never even saw a surgeon. They were often left on the battlefi eld until the day after the battle; many died from blood loss or exposure during this time.

Treatment of prisonersSometimes, the injured were put out of their misery rather than taken prisoner and treated medically. A misericorde was a dagger with a long thin blade that could be thrust between gaps in armour or helmet visors to deliver the ‘mercy stroke’ to a wounded soldier.

There were also many religious wars during this period and this seems to have made soldiers particularly cruel to their captives: ‘Many soldiers displayed an unusual harshness towards their foes because they believed they were punishing the enemies of God’ (The Cambridge History of Warfare, edited by Geoffrey Parker, p. 163).

Other acts of cruelty were based on greed. In 1553, captured soldiers were tied together by their genitalia with fuse cords and tortured by violent yanks on the cord to reveal which were wealthy enough for ransom. The captors slit the throats of all prisoners too poor to provide profi t.


A musketeer, dressed in typical clothes of the English Civil War in the 1640s. Notice the white sash. He is also wearing packets of shot and gunpowder charge, for quicker loading.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 15 5/4/09 11:49:52

Overmatter from p19

Activities

1 Look at the two statements in the summary box on this page. Collect some factual information from these pages to justify each of the statements.

2 Conditions in the army 1350–1700 were harsh because governments didn’t really care about soldiers. On the basis of the information on these pages, how far do you agree with this statement? Justify your answer.

3 How much of the change in army life 1350–1700 would you describe as progress?

Large permanent armies, supplemented by mercenaries, developed in the period 1350–1700.

These armies were diffi cult for governments to clothe, feed and care for.

Summary

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 15 5/4/09 11:49:52

1.5 1645: The Battle of Naseby

16


The English Civil War was fought between:

the Royalist army of King Charles I and• forces supporting Parliament.•

Sir Thomas Fairfax led Parliament’s New Model Army. It was a permanent, paid and well-trained army, fi red by religious enthusiasm. It had a very effective cavalry, led by Oliver Cromwell.

In April 1645, campaigning resumed after a winter break. The King captured Leicester, to improve his grip on the Midlands. He also sent 5,000 troops to besiege Taunton, a key town in the south-west of England. But Fairfax ignored the towns and tried to engage the King in battle instead.

For weeks, the two armies shadowed each other. There were skirmishes on 12 and 13 June. The King consulted his leading generals and decided, without waiting for reinforcement from Taunton, to engage Fairfax in battle. On 14 June, the Parliamentary army took up position on a steep ridge crested by Mill Hill. Its fl anks were protected by thick hedging on one side and rough ground on the other. The King’s general, Prince Rupert, set out his army opposite.

The battle beginsEleven Parliamentary cannon fi red opening shots to soften up the Royalist infantry. But their initial salvos went high, and soon the infantry of the two sides were so close that cannon could not be used. Cannon were therefore not a decisive factor.

The fi rst key action was taken by Cromwell. He sent Colonel Okey and his dragoons behind the western hedging, to harass the enemy with musket fi re. Stung into action, Rupert’s cavalry

charged. Packed solid, thigh to thigh, they broke the Parliamentary lines; two of the Parliamentary cavalry regiments fl ed.

But then Rupert made a mistake. He was unable to prevent his cavalry chasing after the fl eeing Parliamentary troopers and launching an unsuccessful attack on the Parliamentary baggage train. This indiscipline cost the Royalists vital cavalry forces.

Nevertheless, inspired by their breakthrough, the Royalist infantry left its high ground and marched up the slope to the main Parliamentary army. The distance between the armies was small; there was time for only one volley of musket fi re before hand-to-hand fi ghting began. So muskets were not decisive either.

The experienced Royalist army hacked at the Parliamentary infantry, using swords and musket butts; they smashed back the Parliamentary regiments. Skippon, the Parliamentary infantry commander, brought forward reserves. The battle was in the balance. The next stage was decisive.

Cromwell wins the cavalry contestTo support the infantry, the Royalist cavalry, led by Sir Marmaduke Langdale, charged up the slope to attack Cromwell’s cavalry. Langdale was outnumbered two to one and he was forced to attack in a narrow channel, with boggy land on his left. This reduced the width of attack and allowed the defending Parliamentary forces to group solid and deep at the top of the slope. Cromwell’s Ironsides took heavy casualties, but kept their formation and held fi rm. The Royalist charge faltered, stalled and fell back.

Unlike Rupert, Cromwell had good control of his cavalry and his tactics. He sent part of his cavalry to pursue the retreating Royalist horsemen; he wheeled the rest of his force to his left and attacked the Royalist infantry from the fl ank.

The Royal infantry advance stalled. Then, to make matters worse, Okey’s dragoons attacked from the west. Assaulted on all sides, the King’s infantry began to surrender or retreat back down the slope,

Learning OutcomesBy the end of this topic you should be able to:

• explain the events of the Battle of Naseby and Oliver Cromwell’s involvement

• recognise features of the battle that are typical of warfare at the time.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 16 5/4/09 11:49:52

17

Parliamentary Army

Commanded by:

Sir Thomas Fairfax• Oliver Cromwell• Some 13,000 men, including:• about 7,000 infantry, armed with muskets and • swords and protected by pike and artillery

about 6,000 cavalry, armed with swords and • muskets

The King’s Army

Commanded by:

King Charles I• Prince Rupert•

Some 8,000 men, including:

about 4,000 infantry, armed with muskets and • swords and protected by pike and artillery

about 4,000 cavalry, armed with swords and • muskets

looking for shelter. One regiment of Royalist musketeers, the Bluecoats, briefl y held up the Parliamentary counter-attack, but Fairfax attacked them with his reserves. The Bluecoats were smashed by the butt-end of muskets wielded by infantry and trampled by cavalry with pistols.

fl eeing Royalist soldiers standing to loose a volley of musket shot at their pursuers while their comrades fl ed behind them, before turning to fl ee themselves, seeking the cover of defensive fi re from others.

One group of horsemen, fl eeing through Marston Trussell, rode down a cul-de-sac and were trapped and killed. The fi eld there was renamed Slawford (Slaughterford). A hundred women in the Royalist baggage train were also slaughtered as they fl ed. They were Welsh, but the Parliamentarians, staunchly Protestant, mistook them for Irish Catholics and killed them all.

The importance of the battleThe Battle of Naseby raised the profi le of Oliver Cromwell and his Ironsides. On the other hand, the Royalist cause was devastated.

The King lost most of his veteran infantry. About • 1,000 were killed and 5,000 captured.

He also lost 500 offi cers, his fi eld artillery and his • baggage train of arms, powder and food.

Naseby, in effect, ended the King’s chances of winning the English Civil War.


904424_aw_03J7446

History Warfare

RoyalistParliament

Villageto NasebyBaggage

Train

RupertRupert

Okey

InfantryCalalry

King Charles IKing Charles I

Langdale

Astley

Rupert

Furze-covered,boggy rabbit

warren

SulbyHedges

Mill Hill

Dust Hill

B r o a d M o o r

Fairfax

CromwellMusketeers

Ireton Skippon

N

S

EW

A 19th-century picture of the Battle of Naseby, showing Royalist (left) and Parliamentary cavalry. Notice the features of 17th-century cavalry, by that time more lightly armoured and fi ghting with sword and pistols.

The bloody retreatThe Royalists were now in chaotic retreat, through woods and narrow roads. Their fl ight took them through their own baggage train, containing women and servants. The Parliamentary army chased the fl eeing Royalists for about 12 miles. They slaughtered the men they caught. Modern metal detectors have found a constant trail of shot along the route, suggesting a long, recurrent fi refi ght,

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 17 5/4/09 11:49:54

Activities

1 Make a timeline of the events of the battle.2 In what ways was the Battle of Naseby: a) typical of warfare by the 17th century b) untypical of warfare at that time?3 How important was each of the following in

deciding the outcome of the Battle of Naseby: a) the leadership decisions of the King, Prince

Rupert and Cromwell b) the discipline of the New Model Army

compared to the Royalist cavalry?

The Battle of Naseby illustrates several typical features of warfare at that time.

Cromwell and the New Model Army were crucial to the Parliamentary victory.

Summary

Overmatter from p16-17

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 17 5/4/09 11:49:55

1.6 Summary: The changing nature of warfare c.1350–c.1700

18


Simple changeTo help us get an overview of a long period of time, such as 1350–1700, it is sometimes useful to think about change as a simple process.

For example, if we were to think about:

a period of no change or• a period of rapid change•

we could put them on simple graphs such as these:

Complex changeBut change is more complex than simple graphs can show. They give a useful overall impression, but they hide the complexity of change.

During the period 1350–1700, several key features of warfare remained much the same. For example:

infantry remained the biggest part of an army• hand-to-hand weapons – swords, daggers, clubs • etc. – remained much the same

the feigned retreat remained a useful tactic• the siege remained the most common form of war• provisioning the army remained a constant • problem, limiting what a commander could do

medical treatment for the wounded remained poor• mistreatment of prisoners remained common.•

These are examples of continuity.

However, some changes were taking place gradually over the whole period. For example:

feudalism declined as a way of providing armies; • rulers gradually changed to raising money from taxes and using this to pay troops

this caused armies to grow gradually in size• mercenaries became a bigger part of armies• standing armies, though small, emerged• uniforms started to appear, at fi rst in a limited • way and then becoming general.

This type of change is often called development.

And alongside all this continuity and development, some changes transformed warfare – they were key changes that made things completely different afterwards. For example:

muskets transformed the battlefi eld.• This type of change is a turning point.

904424_aw_04J7446

History Warfare

Time

No change

Time

Rapid change

This kind of simple picture of change can help us see ‘the big picture’ – the overall view.

For the period 1350–1700, an overall view of change in warfare could be seen as the following.

a period from 1350 to about 1450, when there • was slow change – there were changes, but they took place gradually and had limited impact

a period from about 1450 to 1700 when bigger • changes occurred, more rapidly and with more signifi cant effects; the biggest cause of all this change was the use of gunpowder weapons.

The year 1450 could be called a watershed because it was a time between two very different periods of change.

Activities

Using the graphs on this page as examples, draw your own graph showing an overall picture of change for the period 1350–1700.

M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 18 5/4/09 11:49:55

19

BattlesBecause history is a combination of continuity and change, over the history of warfare battles show some features that are the same and some that are different. For any battle, we can look at key features such as:

the size of the armies• the composition of the armies – infantry, • archers, cavalry, etc.

the weapons used• the tactics used• the infl uence of the site of the battle• the infl uence of training and discipline• the infl uence of leadership decisions.•


Activities

Would you consider the following features of warfare 1350–1700 to be examples of continuity, development or a turning point? a) the decline of mounted soldiers b) the use of cannon after 1450 c) disease in army camps.

Activities

Look at the events ofthe Battle of Agincourt• the Battle of Naseby.•

Using the features of battles above as a guide: a) List the similarities you can fi nd. b) List any key differences.

Source A: An illustration in a prayer book called Luttrell’s Psalter, made in about 1340. It shows young men doing archery practice

Source B: An engraving made in about 1650. It shows men casting cannon and cannon balls in a forge. There is a battle scene in the background, shown in the top right-hand corner of the engraving.

What can you learn from the two picture sources on this page about changes in warfare 1350–1700? Explain your answer, using the sources (4 marks)

Basic, Level 1 (1–2 marks)Answer gives some relevant information about warfare, e.g. ‘Source A shows an archer. Source B shows cannon.’

Good, Level 2 (3 marks).Answer describes changes, e.g. ‘In 1350 arrows were an army’s main fi repower, but by 1700 armies were using cannon, like in the attack at the top of Source B.’

Excellent, Level 3 (4 marks).Answer as above, but student infers extra information from the sources, e.g. ‘Arrows lack the power of cannon; the siege shown in Source B shows that city walls would have to be redesigned.’


M01_HOW_SB_4196_U01.indd 19 5/4/09 11:49:59

The changing nature of warfare - Pearson · PDF file4 1.1 1350–1450: The age of the...

Documents

Transcript of The changing nature of warfare - Pearson · PDF file4 1.1 1350–1450: The age of the...