How to Win a Battle in the Middle Ages (1000–1500 AD)

Few things puzzled the soldiers and tacticians of history as much as the question of how to win a battle. Jean de Bueil, a French soldier and admiral who lived in the 15th century, came up with an interesting answer for the Middle Ages: To win a battle, it was essential to stay on the defensive because the army that attacked was always at a disadvantage. Let’s take a closer look at what he meant by this and consider its practical implications for warfare in the Middle Ages. To illustrate, let’s start with an example.

Check out our Amazon Storefront for all sorts of military history, military SIFI and military fantasy books that we recommend:

Some must read mlitary history books:

Bibliography
DeVries, K./ Capponi, N., The Genoese Crossbowmen at Crécy, in: Livingston, M./ DeVries, K. (eds), The Battle of Crécy. A Casebook, Liverpool 2015.
DeVries, K./ Smith, R. D., Medieval Military Technology, Toronto 2012.
Teutsch, Ch., s. v. "Crécy, Battle of" in: Clifford J. Rogers (ed), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, 2010.Rogers, Clifford J., War Cruel and Sharp. English Strategy under Edward III, 1327-1360, Woodbridge 2000.
Rogers, Clifford J., The Offensive/Defensive in Medieval Strategy, in: From Crécy to Mohacs: Warfare in the Late Middle Ages (1346-1526), Acta of the XXIInd Colloquium of the International Commission of Military History, Vienna 1996, pp. 158-171.
Strachan, Hew/Herberg-Rothe, Andreas (eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford 2007.
Sumida, Jon, On Defense as the Stronger Form of War, in: Strachan, Hew/Herberg-Rothe, Andreas (eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford 2007, pp. 163-181.

#history #documentary #education

[RenGader]

Glad to know my Total War tactic of sitting still and waiting the enemy to come to me is historically accurate.

[orc_gunslinger]

I'm reading "Supplying War" right now, the book starts off in the rennaissance, where fortresses were king. Apparently it took a 7:1 attacker to defender ratio to siege a fortress. So instead of besieging, armies would just march into enemy territory, and "live off the enemies expense". i.e. plunder the countryside, and keep marching and plundering. So the enemy is forced to leave their fortresses and attack or else risk starvation or financial ruin.

Sun Tzu corroborates this strategy, he says if you are to enter enemy territory, penetrate deep into their territory, well past the frontier.

[McClainJ]

I died a little on the inside when you said "Back in 1996" like it was some long forgotten era.

[blxzrt]

stopped what i was doing immediately for this

[rzierrad]

Edward the 3rd using medieval ragebait to put defenders on the offense is wild

[zanedietlin]

I had a crush on a girl in middle school, we were assigned to a project together and we decided on Agincourt. No real idea where she is now, but that spawned my love of history and geography. I've learned much since, and hadn't thought much of Agincourt. Thanks for this, it takes me back 15 years ago

[iiTzoreo]

This is why maneuver and generalship are so important. Where you place your army before battle can decide the battle before it’s begun

[Seidrintheshade]

Here I am ensconced on a lovely Sunday afternoon with a nice dark coffee, a game of Medieval 2 SSHIP open on my desktop, and another great vid from Sandrhoman to watch. For a moment, all feels right with the world

[rugratrik]

A point on the Battle of Agincourt: A huge factor in the confusion and slowing of the French heavy infantry was the arrow barrage: Not per se because of the casualties, but it created a "spiral" of troops on both flanks of the French, as they tried to move inwards of the formation, to evade the arrow-fire. This broke a lot of the formations, and many soldiers were pushed aside, and fell into the thick mud, where their comrades trampled them in the confusion.

[SeanMurphy-du]

3:13 - That's not what Clausewitz meant. What he meant in modern terms was that the attacker assumes more risk because the defender has inherent advantages, such as the ability to fight from prepared positions and force the attacker to expose themselves. In Book 6, Chapter 8, he wrote, "A major victory is only possible as a result of offensive action. Mere defense can never lead to a complete decision." and in Book 5, Chapter 14, ""Even the ultimate success of a defensive campaign rests on offensive operations."

[jacklandedhere]

Nothing feels better than a cozy sunday afternoon with another sandrhoman banger. Amazing video as always, really encapsulates the amount of weight and pressure decisions held during those battles.

[arcomegis]

Watching this helps me take my time in Med 2. I took significantly less casualties in early sieges by not rushing everyone in. Sometimes, I have to use the infantry or the cavalry general to lure the archers or crossbow to stand in front in order to displace them effectively. Rushing infantry combat doesn’t make them more effective than in Rome 1.

While most of the battles should be fought on defensive stance, it is also important to go on the offensive as a follow up after a successful defense. An enemy will not go on the attack unless your army numbers are drastically smaller than his. This is where you need the more high quality army with enough roles to actually equalize in the battlefield.

[firmanimad]

The army of the steppes were experts at strategic offense x tactical defense: Unparalleled mobility and coordination. Expertise in plundering and psychological warfare. A good example was Timur's utter annihilation of Bayazid's grand Ottoman army.

It would be cool if Sandrhoman could cover this.

[hitler]

9:24
The general, "But...but the enemies are clearly luring us to give up our defensive positions and fight a battle in their terms!"
Politicians, "And I'm falling for it! Go to battle!"

[uelibinde]

first tutorial on youtube that i actually needed.

[Valdor]

Man, the timing of the video is perfect as I went back to studying the Hundred Years War. On my 13th bday, I was introduced to the Battle of Agincourt from Medieval 2 TW demo, like a month before the release date. Such a good memory! Agincourt was the first battle that made fall in love with history.

Keep up the good videos!

[archlittle]

This tactic led to maneuver and position warfare, where an outflanked force would retreat rather than fight. This led to the saying, “A great General can be successful his entire life and never fight a battle.”

[Virluxlol]

As someone currently living in the UK. This is essential

[williamshakesbeer]

I think the biggest reason to why Tactical Defense was so much better in this time period was because of the soldiers fighting. Remember These weren't trained soldiers. Majority of the forces fighting in this era was just normal peasants with almost no training and barely any equipment, usually only having a shield and spear along with maybe a knife or axe as secondary together with some armour if they were lucky and on the richer side compared to the well trained and equipped knights who were all nobles but only was available in small numbers. Ill-trained and ill-equipped peasants mean that morale is a massive factor resulting in that formation fighting is the best way to fight, and as you said marching forward means that the formation gets weaker and chances of the formation to dissolve which would mean the peasants either dying or fleeing in panic. I would love to hear a continuation of this episode where you explain how to win battles in the age of pike and shot where well-trained, well-equipped, and dedicated soldiers started becoming the norm instead of an exception so that we can see the differences in thinking between the middle ages and the age of Pike and shot.

[kebabinii]

"How to Win a Battle in the Middle Ages"
Spam horse archers, press F1 then F3.
It usually clears everything other than swadian knights
Okay tactic for IRL battles:
Spam Turkish horse archers and let them charge, it usually clears everything other than french knights