Holkam Picture Bible (mid 14th c.) half-page entitled, ‘How the lower classes fight.’ As well as a range of swords and pole-arms, the archers7 bows are accurately represented as thick and knotty staves.

The reasons why men fought also had an influence on the way they fought and across such a broad spread of techniques we can identify some over-riding motivations. The mobility of the raiding armies of the Vikings and Magyars allowed them the option of not fighting if they didn’t think they would win. The Magyars plundered eastern Europe with ease, collecting what they wanted and escaping to safety. It was only when the Germans blocked them at Lechfield that they were brought to book. The Vikings came in the back door, terrified the locals, loaded their ships and disappeared back out to sea. Occasionally the raided population would put up a fight. The Vikings would often respond by inflicting horrible mutilations, making the next raid easier through pre-emptive fear. Spreading terror was just a sensible tactic to secure the aim of leaving alive with the loot they had captured.

The proud knight with his expensive armour and horses was forced by his lofty social position to fight. If he didn’t he might lose his lands and his life. If he fought well he could gain money from ransoms and lands from his king. He was willing to fight even against seemingly impossible odds. That he managed sometimes to win in such circumstances is a tribute to his bravery or foolishness depending on your point of view. The medieval knight had a dreadful need of money and it made more sense to capture and ransom other knights than to kill them. When fighting for the church on a crusade, the goods and chattels he left at home were protected by a Papal edict and he gained remission of sins committed before and after the crusade. Even when enlisted to do the work of the church he sometimes succumbed to the money motive (Simon de Montfort, being an notable example), but so did the church, becoming fat on the sale of prayers and relics.

The people’s armies of Switzerland, Flanders and Scotland fought to preserve their independence against the egos and avarice of their neighbours. They had to stand and fight, for a man on foot cannot outrun a man on horseback. But they were not armies of conquest; Scotland’s attempt on Ireland under the command of Edward Bruce, brother of Robert, came to grief at the Battle of Faughart (1318). Although they might have been forced to behave aggressively, they were essentially defensive and spearmen might be good against cavalry, but they had no answer against massed archery.

We can see a distinct trend from all these battles. It is apparent that an arrow, whether fired from a longbow, crossbow or even from horseback, had the capability to knock an enemy out of action at a considerable distance. The archer that loosed that shot could then fire another and another, maiming foe after foe before the other side came close enough for hand-to-hand combat. Here we see the advantage of fighting at a distance. However, training an archer to be proficient took years to build up the muscles and stamina to pull back the bowstring, as well as practice at hitting the target.

Despite official edicts compelling practice at the archery butts in England, and her imitators in Scotland, Gascony and even France, it was always difficult to get enough trained men. Thus when soldiers found it easier to learn how to use the new handguns properly, the guns quickly became popular. As both manufacturing and product technology improved, firearms became more and more widespread in the Early Modern period.

Discipline

In a modern army the will of the senior officer is enforced by the established hierarchy; everyone knows whom they must obey. This system is backed up by a clear, formal procedure and range of punishments, enforcing obedience to orders. Medieval military discipline needed to fulfill the same requirements. As in normal life, civil jurisdiction competed with ecclesiastical law, depending upon the crime. Civil justice was meted out by a lord of superior ranking. Punishments included forfeiture of titles, lands or castles and imprisonment for lords and knights, with branding, maiming and execution for the lower orders. Ecclesiastical retribution included a variety of ad hoc penances, including flagellation, ex-communication (for individuals, whole towns or communities) and immolation.

On campaigns the judgmental process would necessarily have been shortened, but both civil and religious processes are recorded. There seems to have been little attempt to apprehend deserting individuals. This is presumably because there were too few spare personnel available to try to catch them and most crimes were of a pillaging or desecrating nature. Once the 40 days of service were up, a king’s or marshall’s troops were free to leave if they so desired and if they could not be persuaded to stay.

It was when there were real options to desert that true leadership kept everyone together. The tribal forces from around the periphery of Europe relied far more on the charismatic leadership of an individual to raise a force and hold it in the field through periods of inactivity and when events were going badly. Within a tribal society, a threat to the shared culture, appeal to traditions and reliance upon religion could generate huge support. (Religion meant a great deal to the medieval mind and the thought that your actions would guarantee a place in the heaven of your choice bolstered morale enormously.) The pagan tribes facing the Teutonic knights could raise more than 40,000 warriors.