13
03
2010
A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages: 1278-1485 Ad
Posted by: admin in Oman Books
Product Description
Volume Two covers the Welsh Wars of Edward I, Bannockburn, the Hundred Years War, the rise of the Swiss, the Condottieri in Italy, the Hussite Wars, and the Wars of the Roses. Particular emphasis is given to the early use of gunpowder and its effect on tactics and siegecraft. Sir Charles Oman was one of Britain’s foremost historians and author of A History of the Peninslar War.
A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages: 1278-1485 Ad
Entries (RSS)
March 13th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
As the title “Art of War” indicates, this isn’t a history of campaigns and battles per se but the evolution of military strategy, tactics and weapons in this period. The overarching theme is the ascendancy and eclipse of the armored horseman which began as the need to find have a force of mobile, professional soldiers to deal with the Vikings and the Magyars. This first phase culminates in the battle of Hastings where a mounted army defeated an infantry army. It goes on to cover the decline of the armored horseman. This showed up in the victories of the English longbow and infantry armies and in pike formations of the Swiss. Several key battles are mentioned as examples of the various types of battle (cavalry vs. infantry, cavalry and infantry vs. cavalry, etc.). Of interest is the lack of strategic sense in Western Europe, Prince Edward’s Evesham campaign being a rare exception. A close look is also taken at the Byzantine system which was marked by a pragmatic and flexible adaptation to the different tactical systems of their potential enemies. Discussion also covers the armies of the Vikings, Saracens and Magyars, et al. There are also chapters in each chronological period covering developments in arms and armor and in fortification and siege craft. I have two criticisms of the work. The first is his chapter on the Mongols. Oman writes off the Mongols’ victories in Europe as being due to the disunity of the Europeans and Mongolian numerical superiority. In fact, Genghis Khan organized a first-rate military system marked by the use of maneuver and exercised by disciplined troops that was later led by capable heirs (see the discussion the Mongols in Dupuy and Dupuy’s Encyclopedia of Military History). At Liegnitz, contrary to being outnumbered fivefold, Henry the Pious had numerical parity with the Mongol force. King Bela’s army at the Sajo River was about equal to Subotai’s force. I’m also a little dubious about his assertion that gunpowder wasn’t of Chinese origin. None of his examples arguing that Chinese weapons were actually incendiaries address the claim that the Chinese used gunpowder in firecrackers (thus, they may not have been the first to find a military application for gunpowder). Those two areas, however, are only a small portion of the work which is well-written and well worth the time of anyone interested in the subject.
Rating: 4 / 5
March 13th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
I read this book for a graduate course in medieval history.
Charles Oman’s great book “A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages” is a great comprehensive work for warfare of the period. It is especially useful for battle descriptions of English wars against the Scottish, and for the Hundred Years War. Oman writes that the lesson of the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, was clear for any competent military commander to follow; cavalry alone could not defeat the Scottish squares, but archers supported by cavalry could easily break them. These tactics would be successfully repeated by Edward III against the Scots at Hallidon Hill in 1333, and Neville’s Cross in 1346, not to mention in his invasion of France
Edward I’s most important contribution to advancing the war fighting capability of Britain was in the battlefield tactics that he employed. It cannot be stressed enough that his use of mixed cavalry and archery was a monumental leap in battlefield tactics, as well as the precursor in making the longbow a force multiplier during the Hundred Years’ War. The military record of Edward II, who reigned from 1307-1327, was abysmal. Charles Oman spoke on behalf of all historians who wrote about Edward II’s lack of military prowess, and was justifiably unflattering in his critique of Edward II’s military acumen. Most of what Edward I won on the battlefields in Scotland, Edward II ineptly lost.
Edward III’s strategic and tactical abilities were on full display during the Hundred Years’ War. One of the most important tactical innovations that Edward III instituted to increase the fighting capability of the English army before the start of the Hundred Years’ War was the introduction of mounted archers to its ranks. Oman took notice of the importance of Edward III’s tactical innovation. Mounted archers rode ponies for quick transport to the battlefield, and then they would dismount to shoot their longbows in battle. Undoubtedly, Edward III learned from the previous one hundred years of his predecessors’ fighting the Scottish, that too many times the Scots outmaneuvered the English; thus, they escaped from having to fight a battle advantageous to the English. Edward III was going to do all he could to make sure that this did not happen to his army. Oman’s research shows muster records from 1334 listing mounted archers for the first time as part of Edward III’s expedition into Scotland. This was Edward III’s second largest campaign against an enemy during his reign. The expedition served as an excellent opportunity for Edward III and his army to prove their new tactics, which they would put to good use a dozen years later in France.
Recommended reading for those interested in medieval history, and military history.
Rating: 5 / 5
March 13th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
This two part set is very detailed and explains everythig well. It is not, however a referance book. It reads very well, but has a tendancy to drag at parts. Any one with an interest in ancient war should certainly check this out.
Rating: 4 / 5