Martial Artist & Battle Tactician

[Jeffrey Hull]

There is a notion that even if European knights were good martial artists (true), they were somehow bad battle tacticians (untrue).

This article by John Gillingham, using the example of the 12th-13th Century Anglo-Norman warrior William the Marshal, makes the case that they could certainly be accomplished at both

War and Chivalry in the History of William the Marshal
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/a ... ingham.htm

Indeed, English King Henry II called William molt corteis (most courteous), not because he was a clever glad-handing socialite at court who acted according to some ridiculous modern Ren-faire idea of "courtesy", but rather because he helped his king (thus the court) with sound effective military advice versus the French.

[Stewart Sackett]

Any time I get into a discussion of William Marshal I begin to feel like one of those sad people who expend all their energy worshipping Bruce Lee. Marshal was simply a phenomenal individual. Easily one of the coolest warriors in history.

Sorry. Obviously my fawning contributes nothing of substance to this thread, so I’ll stop now.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

They weren't the best, but they were certainly good fighters and tacticians, hence we all speak English, a European language. I think this all depends largely who is the leader. During the Crusade, the European had better leader, King Richard the Lion, and he beat the Muslim in their own land eventhough the Muslim forces were much more advance than the European forces....

[Randall Pleasant]

They weren't the best, but they were certainly good fighters and tacticians, hence we all speak English, a European language. I think this all depends largely who is the leader. During the Crusade, the European had better leader, King Richard the Lion, and he beat the Muslim in their own land eventhough the Muslim forces were much more advance than the European forces....

Sripol

So in what way were the Muslim forces "more advance" than the European forces?

[Sripol Asanasavest]

They Muslims were well known for scientific knowlege in medicine and building advance siege weapons, ancient technologies, etc... Although, my knowledge in this area is rather limited, but from what I have heard from historians that the crusade had much impact on Western European culture with all the knowledge and science they had brought back from the Middle East, and also from other places like Greece and Byzantine Empire.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Lets talk about that article and other historical European figures, shall we?

Gillingham makes it clear that he had to confront notions originating from amongst his peers in the so-called academic community. He points out who was on the right track (of course, those who agree with him), and who was way off (and they could be way off, IMHO). Indeed, he indicates struggling with the so-called academic community in manner similar to how we struggle with the so-called WMA community.

I think that as ARMA and other martial artists try to determine and advance the truth of historical European martial arts and warfare, that it is good to read, recongnise & spread news of such articles, and to reference such in our own articles.

Okay guys, any other figures in Med & Ren Europe who were accomplished both at the personal martial arts and the mass battle tactics?

So far, we have suggested William the Marshal and King Richard I.

I would suggest that King Alfred the Great of England seems to qualify as well.

[RayMcCullough]

The Muslim armies were not more advanced. The Europeans were usually outnumbered and in hostile territory. The fact that they were still very successful is a good indicator of their individual martial prowess and the state of their Martial Arts as a whole.

[Benjamin Smith]

I have always found the discussion of historical individuals fascinating. Indeed they tend to be the most meaningful of discussions. It is no coincidence that many theories break down at the level of the individual, because this level has the most specific evidence. It therefore conversely allows the most specific support for good theories. Arguments between historians such as myself usually break down into "Didn't so and so did x at place y?" "Yes, but so and so did a at place b." Which often indicates that both are wrong and the larger theory needs to be adjusted.

I've read a fair bit on the period, including Painter's biography of William Marshall, I think the histories of a successful warrior are well worth our reading. We can glean for example that personal combat and martial arts were a solid core of his training considering his personal success in combat. But we can also see that once one had moved up in the ranks, so to speak, that understanding logistics, strategy, and tactics received greater emphasis. Particularly when one got close to a king, as William Marshall did.

We can see that both were learned in the small scale first, and under the tutelage of experienced warriors, often during or immediately following engagements, and that they rewarded merit in the field. Martial arts of the time seem to have been a means to an end, namely victory in battle. This makes them a means of economic gain, as well as social and political tools.

I particularly appreciate the comparison with contemporary military paradigms. Gillingham goes to great lengths to illustrate the mental elements of knightly warfare. Pillaging and plundering become striking at the enemies industry and infrastructure. Cities get burnt to the ground in both cases. I find myself persuaded that modern warrior's understanding of military conflict and how to conduct it is probably little different from ancient warfare, but that the motivations behind the means seem to have changed a great deal.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Lets talk about that article and other historical European figures, shall we?

Gillingham makes it clear that he had to confront notions originating from amongst his peers in the so-called academic community. He points out who was on the right track (of course, those who agree with him), and who was way off (and they could be way off, IMHO). Indeed, he indicates struggling with the so-called academic community in manner similar to how we struggle with the so-called WMA community.

I think that as ARMA and other martial artists try to determine and advance the truth of historical European martial arts and warfare, that it is good to read, recongnise & spread news of such articles, and to reference such in our own articles.

Okay guys, any other figures in Med & Ren Europe who were accomplished both at the personal martial arts and the mass battle tactics?

So far, we have suggested William the Marshal and King Richard I.

I would suggest that King Alfred the Great of England seems to qualify as well.

I would also agree with Alfred the Great. I would also venture Charlemagne, Harold Godwineson II of England (beat Harold of Norway at Stamford), William the Conqueror (may his name be erased! Sorry, proud Saxon here ), El Cid, Tancred de Hauteville, Baldwin of Boulogne (my ancestor!), Edward Plantagenant I & III of England, Edward the Black Prince of Wales, John of Gaunt (brother of the Black Prince), Vlad (Tepes) III of Wallachia, the list could go on and on...

-B.

[Awesome King.]

Lets talk about that article and other historical European figures, shall we?

Gillingham makes it clear that he had to confront notions originating from amongst his peers in the so-called academic community. He points out who was on the right track (of course, those who agree with him), and who was way off (and they could be way off, IMHO). Indeed, he indicates struggling with the so-called academic community in manner similar to how we struggle with the so-called WMA community.

I think that as ARMA and other martial artists try to determine and advance the truth of historical European martial arts and warfare, that it is good to read, recongnise & spread news of such articles, and to reference such in our own articles.

Okay guys, any other figures in Med & Ren Europe who were accomplished both at the personal martial arts and the mass battle tactics?

So far, we have suggested William the Marshal and King Richard I.

I would suggest that King Alfred the Great of England seems to qualify as well.

I would also agree with Alfred the Great. I would also venture Charlemagne, Harold Godwineson II of England (beat Harold of Norway at Stamford), William the Conqueror (may his name be erased! Sorry, proud Saxon here ), El Cid, Tancred de Hauteville, Baldwin of Boulogne (my ancestor!), Edward Plantagenant I & III of England, Edward the Black Prince of Wales, John of Gaunt (brother of the Black Prince), Vlad (Tepes) III of Wallachia, the list could go on and on...

-B.

I am, however, not so sure that Alfred the Great would fit so comfortably amongst so illustrious a list. He certainly was no warrior, indeed he was almost constantly ill, as for as a strategos well...just think of what happened as Rochester, a victory yes but nowhere near what it should have been.

On the other hand he did alot to encourage learning and his system of setting up defensive, permanently garrisoned burhs around his country was an effective tactic.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I am, however, not so sure that Alfred the Great would fit so comfortably amongst so illustrious a list. He certainly was no warrior, indeed he was almost constantly ill, as for as a strategos well...just think of what happened as Rochester, a victory yes but nowhere near what it should have been.

On the other hand he did alot to encourage learning and his system of setting up defensive, permanently garrisoned burhs around his country was an effective tactic.

Wrong, utterly wrong -- Alfred was indeed a warrior, not just a scholar. In his situation, he could not have afforded to be less than a warrior yet have fared so well as he did.

Alfred, along with brothers, fought in probably nine battles with the Danes before he even became king. After becoming king, he had to fight many more battles with the Danes. Indeed, he initially had to make a comback from near total defeat to eventual liberation of Wessex with consequent ousting of his invasive foe back into the Danelaw.

During that comeback time, Alfred existed off the land like some kind of wild beast for months, building up a new army as he roamed the land to gather men and resources. Alfred was willing to be savage, to do so personally in warfare : There was a battle where Alfred and his men fought the Danes, and sent them into retreat for their fort. Alfred and his men did not let up, pursuing the Danes so quickly that when he and his men caught some of the Danes who failed to make it to the gates, they slaughtered them ruthlessly right in front of that fort.

Alfred pushed back the Norse into the Danelaw to reconstitute a unified England. He built a new navy for England with ships of his own new innovative design, one that successfully engaged their enemies.

And yes, Alfred did indeed establish a unified and mutually supportive system of burghs (fort-towns) to bolster his country.

Alfred won some battles and he lost some battles -- yet he never stopped fighting, and he got back what others tried to take away from him, and consequently improved the lot of his folk.

Read The Life of Alfred by his Welsh clegyman-biographer Asser; and a fine modern scholarly book Alfred: Warrior King by John Peddie.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

Sorry for being a bit off topic...

Alfred pushed back the Norse into the Danelaw

I was going to correct you, for talking about the wrong people (Danelaw = Danes, not Norse ...or so I thought) but, after a trip to wikipedia, having seen this "mistake" so may times, I now know who is truly at fault:
The English language!
The word "Norse" confuses the heck out of Nordic (not a confusing word) people, since we will probably, just like me (until I checked wikipedia right now), interpret it as Norwegian (which, indeed, is the origin of the word).

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

I would put Harald Hardrada on the list as well. His work among the northern tribes was indispensable. Not to mention he was king of Norway and Denmark. And He is the reason that the battle of Hastings ended the way it did. (arguable, I know, but I have my opinions)

-Jeremiah (GFS)

[Mike Cartier]

Charles Martel

or as his buddies knew him Charles the Hammer!

[Awesome King.]

I am, however, not so sure that Alfred the Great would fit so comfortably amongst so illustrious a list. He certainly was no warrior, indeed he was almost constantly ill, as for as a strategos well...just think of what happened as Rochester, a victory yes but nowhere near what it should have been.

On the other hand he did alot to encourage learning and his system of setting up defensive, permanently garrisoned burhs around his country was an effective tactic.

Wrong, utterly wrong -- Alfred was indeed a warrior, not just a scholar. In his situation, he could not have afforded to be less than a warrior yet have fared so well as he did.

Alfred, along with brothers, fought in probably nine battles with the Danes before he even became king. After becoming king, he had to fight many more battles with the Danes. Indeed, he initially had to make a comback from near total defeat to eventual liberation of Wessex with consequent ousting of his invasive foe back into the Danelaw.

During that comeback time, Alfred existed off the land like some kind of wild beast for months, building up a new army as he roamed the land to gather men and resources. Alfred was willing to be savage, to do so personally in warfare : There was a battle where Alfred and his men fought the Danes, and sent them into retreat for their fort. Alfred and his men did not let up, pursuing the Danes so quickly that when he and his men caught some of the Danes who failed to make it to the gates, they slaughtered them ruthlessly right in front of that fort.

Alfred pushed back the Norse into the Danelaw to reconstitute a unified England. He built a new navy for England with ships of his own new innovative design, one that successfully engaged their enemies.

And yes, Alfred did indeed establish a unified and mutually supportive system of burghs (fort-towns) to bolster his country.

Alfred won some battles and he lost some battles -- yet he never stopped fighting, and he got back what others tried to take away from him, and consequently improved the lot of his folk.

Read The Life of Alfred by his Welsh clegyman-biographer Asser; and a fine modern scholarly book Alfred: Warrior King by John Peddie.

I'm aware of his time as the "marsh king" etc, I meant, do we have any citations of him actually fighting? We know he was ill (hence my earlier supposition of him solely as a tactician) in his later life, not so sure about his life as a youngster.