A while back I saw someone mention that the ability to deploy infantry during the middle ages was limited according to the season due to the peasant soldier's need to attend to their farms.
I understand that this would keep the peasant occupied from the early spring to at least late summer. So would I be right in inferencing that most medieval war (at least ideally) took place in the fall and early winter?
If this is not the case, could someone explain what might have been meant?
>>1128304
At least most places in Europe, the main crop would have been wheat, and I believe the wheat harvest is usually in autumn, not late summer.
Plus, the whole "peasant conscript armies" is about 85% meme; while there was enormous variation, smaller groups of professional or semi-professional mercenary forces really were the norm for a lot of the time, and those guys aren't going to be impeded by the planting and harvest schedule.
IIRC, (and I haven't done a lot of reading, so I could be dead wrong on this) most medieval warfare took place from early summer to mid-fall, but that more had to do with the weather than anything else.
>>1128304
Campaigns in europe generally took place in the spring and summer during good weather and before the harvest in September.
However attacking armies might wait until after their own harvest so they can use part-time soldiers or time their attack to coincide with the enemy's harvest.
King Harold's fyrdmen is a good example of this.
>>1128316
>>1128338
Thank you /his/, I am grateful for the knowledge!
I bid you all goodnight.
>>1128304
"Peasant Soldiers" were at best, a mere Posse tasked to arrest somebody. Nobody press-ganged peasants into militaries.
Hell, in Europe, "Militia" often meant Urban burghers. In Medieval Europe, cities were often ruled by a council of burghers rather than feudal lords. This meant that unlike Peasants, they have no meme knights or castles to flock to in emergencies. So citizens were often responsible for their own defense, buying weapons and armor and having seasons of periodic military drills or terms of service like a period of service doing law enforcement and night patrols.
And these guys weren't pushovers armed with meme pitchforks, they are outfitted like medieval soldiers.
Not to mention Cities were also prone to surplus population. These guys often ended up as career militiamen.
>>1128702
Man, I just love the general aesthetic of medieval equipment.
>>1128810
Kinda agree, but I'm no fan of christian iconography.
>>1128702
I want to carry your baby flipbro
>>1128810
Its largely due to zero standardization among suppliers of the military.
Couple this with the fact that Knights, some men at arms, mercenaries, and militiamen owned their equipment and bought stuff based on preference.
>>1128316
>>1128702
>All this revisionism
No peasant levies were standard practice for every single nation since the birth of civilization. Maintaining a large standing army was virtually impossible for most of human history and most armies went with the typical route of having a small force of professional soldiers at any given time and during periods of war levies were raised to amplify existing forces
>>1128304
>So would I be right in inferencing that most medieval war (at least ideally) took place in the fall and early winter?
no. it would be that most medieval warfare was done by professional warrior class while peasants stayed at their fields doing peasant stuff.
>>1130423
>Urban Militia.
>Peasants.
>>1130659
>Implying they're any better
Urban militia might have a slight edge over the average peasant but if you think that a bunch of part-time soldiers are going to be on the same level as professional-career soldiers then you've never spent any time in the military. In terms of ability and performance the difference between reservists and regulars are vast.
>>1130843
If you drill the same group of people for years, outfit them with high-quality equipment, have them led by experienced career soldiers and fighting a defensive action to protect their homes and families, even militias can perform very well.
Not to mention the fact that most cities had some sort of fortification.
>>1128304
In Moldova at least, there were two armies, "Oastea cea mare" which was the Big host, was summoned by the King of Moldova only in dire situations, usually when facing a bigger foe like the ottoman empire, but on regular warring days he had "Oastea cea mică" which were light cavalry units, usually employed elite court soldiers, and professional mercenaries
>>1130988
Wasn't Moldavia next to Romania? Did you guys have vampire warlords too?
Why didn't the Draculas conquer Europe with their bloodsucking powers?
>>1128304
Depends what period you're talking about.
For a lot of the medieval era armies were mostly mercenaries. In a sense they were professional armies of professional trained life long soldiers, but their loyalty was to coin not to the king they served.
>>1131010
Dracula was actually the cousin of Moldova's greatest king, Stephan the III, which actually helped him gain the moldovan throne.
Oh and we had a muslim gypsy as a king sometime in the 17th century for a couple of days, but his name is slipping my mind right now.
The Seleukid king relied on his royal guards and mercenaries for small conflicts. The accepted theory is that each Greek/Macedonian settler would send his oldest son to serve a time in the guard before returning home and sending his own son. During major conflicts the king would call upon all military settlers. During Antiochus III first invasion of lower Syria he sent his western settler soldiers home to tend to their crops and lessen the strain upon supply but the settlers from the eastern part of the kingdom remained.
>>1130843
Almost everyone were part-time soldiers, and urban militia had something many professional soldiers did not have at the time - group cohesion. These guys trained together in ways many professional medieval soldiers did not, which is why a lot of the best mercenaries of the age were themselves just experienced bands of urban militia who continued fighting rather than return to civilian life.
>>1131031
Found him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C8%98tefan_R%C4%83zvan
He actually ruled for 9 months
>>1131010
Both wallachia and moldavia became ottoman vassals eventually and this went on till the 1800's.
>>1131091
Vassals, but never conquered.
>>1128304
Can we be more specific about when we are talking about? The early middle ages and the late middle ages are like different worlds. Hell, there's a huge difference in warfare between the 9th century and the 13th. I wish the term 'middle ages' didn't exist.
>>1128304
Early French Kings would require a levy from their vassals. His vassals would recruit men from their land (free and un-free men). However, they would usually be compensated with men who would work on their land whilst they were gone. You would have to pay a fine if you were not able to answer the summons. Men answering the call to arms would sometimes have their equipment supplied for them or be paid extra if they could supply their own equipment. The idea that peasants were wearing rags and just thrown into battles is ridiculous. Peasants were a varied class of people of various social positions and they would be expected to be compensated well for their services.
This form of recruitment wasn't regular though and I believe that the King would usually rely on his direct vassals such as his lords and knights as well as mercenaries for regular warfare. It's important to remember as well that throughout the middle ages recruitment via the vassalage system was incredibly unreliable. During the hundred years war, for example, the armies that formed would be a complete mixture of different elements with many Lords and cities deciding to abstain from being summoned for whatever reason or Lords would send fewer men than they were asked. In England at least, money started becoming a substitute for fighting for your lord.
Urban militia emerged much later in Medieval history.
>>1128304
>that most medieval war (at least ideally) took place in the fall and early winter?
Nope almost no food in those seasons, at least not enough to supply a campaign
>>1131608
>no food available right after harvest
uh...
>>1130843
>Legnano.
>Golden Spurs.
>Hussites
Sure. Urban militias are useless. So useless, when a medieval army is assembled, they're part of the muster alongside knights, professional soldiers, and mercenaries.
Also I'm shitting down on you saying that Peasants = Urbanites. Both are commoners, but they're not the same people. Peasants are a rural class attached to some feudal lord during the medieval ages. While some Burghers were attached to the rare urban nobility, the whole lot of them were attached to the city as citizens per urban charter & laws. Why is this important?
Unlike peasants, these -again I have to stress it- fucking drill. By law. Militarily. Under the supervision of military commanders and professionals. Either annually/seasonal, and some like in Italy even have service terms in which you have to serve a number of years in the Militia to be even considered a citizens with full rights.
Even worse is that they form solid cohesive units with each other. In addition to a medieval city having strong civic identities, militias are often formed by neighborhood/guild lines. These men knew each other possibly since as children, or worked with each other day in day out. In guilds, they even contribute a bit of their income to a communal money-pool to buy arms and armor. Even the upper crust fought in the militia, at times as cavalrymen or just infantry with really good equipment.
Furthermore a some formidable infantry formations came out of urban militias. The medieval pike formation to name one, emerging from the militias in Switzerland.
>>1128304
pretty sure the younger and older family members (and women) could manage their farms for them
>>1128304
It's simple. For large warfare, peasant levies were impossible to avoid (some feuds could be resolve with just knights and personal guards but we're talking big wars here). You have to understand at that time the only way to eat is agriculture, missing one harvest will result in more death than war.
>>1133523
I don't think you realise how much work farming was back in the days. They had next to no tools for most of the Middle-Age.
Actually, you could think the introduction of the plough was the major factor for the end of Middle-Age
>>1130953
>If you drill the same group of people for years, outfit them with high-quality equipment, have them led by experienced career soldiers and fighting a defensive action to protect their homes and families, even militias can perform very well.
That often wasn't the reality. It was difficult and expensive to train militia to a cohesive unit, and most of their skills translated into archery and crossbows as opposed to close combat due to the popularity of shooting guilds.
>many professional soldiers did not have at the time - group cohesion.
Objectively wrong. Being a professional soldier means being part of a cohesive group, that's what sets them above a militia. Do you honestly believe that a bunch urban dwellers who train a couple of days a month will be on the same level as a group of professional soldiers who train and drill several times a week and are immersed in military lifestyle?
>a lot of the best mercenaries of the age were themselves just experienced bands of urban militia who continued fighting rather than return to civilian life.
Mercenaries came from many different backgrounds, the fact that some of them came form urban militia and decided to become career soldiers means nothing. Mercenary work was extremely lucrative and the average soldier was paid the wage of a skilled craftsman or laborer, it's very easy to see why someone who's good with weapon who be drawn to the trade.
>>1128825
*tips*
>>1133399
>Sure. Urban militias are useless. So useless, when a medieval army is assembled, they're part of the muster alongside knights, professional soldiers, and mercenaries.
>What are force amplifiers
Meaningless, even reserves are called up in times of war and they're typically relegated to minor duties so regulars and professional soldiers can be freed up for field service.
>Unlike peasants, these -again I have to stress it- fucking drill. By law. Militarily. Under the supervision of military commanders and professionals. Either annually/seasonal, and some like in Italy even have service terms in which you have to serve a number of years in the Militia to be even considered a citizens with full rights.
You haven't disproven anything that I've said
>Even worse is that they form solid cohesive units with each other...
So what if they knew each other? Just because you've known someone for years doesn't mean that you can rely on them or even work with them in a military context. Historically militia were good on the defensive but on the offense ranged from terrible to mixed performance.
>The medieval pike formation to name one, emerging from the militias in Switzerland.
Pike formations did not arise from Switzerland they were simply the most famous for using it but the return of pike warfare in the European battlefield was a slow gradual process that emerged amongst peoples that couldn't afford professional men-at-arms.
>>1133654
Cry some more faggot, I'd much rather have Freya's adorning my shield then some stupid cross or some stupid saint or religious icon.
>>1134184
>>Freya's Fabulous Funbags
Fixed.
>>1133575
What? The plough had been in use since the early middle ages. It was called the carruca and was pulled by oxen..
>>1133575
uh... what? They had tools, anon. Especially the fucking plow.
>>1133642
You're an idiot.
>It was difficult and expensive to train militia to a cohesive unit
No it wasn't. The men drilled on their own time, not on the cities time or dime. It costs literally nothing on its own.
>Objectively wrong. Being a professional soldier means being part of a cohesive group
Except knights constantly left their households to find better opportunities, and did NOT fight cohesively. They could charge cohesively, but that's because knights had an accepted method for doing this that everyone shared.
>group of professional soldiers who train and drill several times a week and are immersed in military lifestyle?
These didn't exist.
>>1133738
>MILITISAMENS R SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN PESENTS.
>People who drill and go to part time military service and are called to war are *slightly* better than those who NEVER do so.
>Meaningless
>Agrees that militias are force amplifiers
You're one bag of contradictions m8.
Also that anon posted Flanders Militiamen. Those nigs humiliated and destroyed French Knights in Courtrai by smartly entrenching the battlefield to render charges ineffective and force the knights to fight on foot. And this was fucking intention: the Flanders militiamen believed they had the advantage as infantrymen as they were well drilled during their terms of military training and service. And guess what? They were right.
Oh and the whole army was militia.
>>1134184
>paganboo
>likes animu
You couldn't be more of a neckbeard if you tried
>>1128304
Peasants weren't soldiers, at least not if it could be helped.
>>1135141
>No it wasn't. The men drilled on their own time, not on the cities time or dime. It costs literally nothing on its own.
No they didn't, urban militia units were funded and equipped by their cities, boroughs and guilds. Though service in the urban militia was a point of civic pride, training and drills were socially and economically disruptive.
>Except knights constantly left their households to find better opportunities, and did NOT fight cohesively. They could charge cohesively, but that's because knights had an accepted method for doing this that everyone shared.
You're grasping at straws, professional soldiers extended beyond knights.
>These didn't exist.
So apparently men-at-arms and mercenary companies didn't exist. You don't know shit about shit, I suggest you educate yourself on military development in Europe during the Middle Ages before you shit post
>>1135620
I don't think you understand what the word contradiction means so I suggest you stop using it. The Battle of the Golden Spurs was won by the Flemish due to the incompetence of the French commanders rather than the ability of the Flemish militia. J.F. Verbruggen points out that the Flemish urban militia had no formal weapons training and they had to learn maneuvers on the march, and they were utter shit at on the attack due to their lack of regular drill and training.
>>1136152
>mercenaries and men at arms
>drilled several times a week
PICK. ONE.
>>1136152
So French knights also did not have formal weapons training when they were beaten at melee by Flemish?
Looks like Militiamen are more needed then since they're cheaper.
>>1128825
>>1138858
Look. I'm not saying Militiamen are supersoldiers. What I'm saying is they can fight in a military capacity.
Meanwhile you're the one who's insisting that they are as no good as the meme peasant with a pitchfork. When historically this is not the fucking case.
>>1131115
thats the same thing you delusional balkanshit
>>1139150
Why such a wide variety of axe shapes?
>>1135630
Again cry more. Freya has the nicest rack of all the aesir and vanir and that greco-roman slut aphrodite cannot possibly hope to compete.
If you don't want her and her marvelous milkjugs adorning your shield, tabard and armor and would rather have some stupid christcuck saint there instead you are the neckbeard here, not me.
>>1139237
>How do you like your enemies today senpai.
>Pruned.
>Gotchu this billhook bb.
