Weapons and Tactics

Chapter 3

Columnist Brig (Retd) ZA KHAN gives an overview of the changing concepts over the years.

1. Battlefield Domination By Cavalry

The Roman military system as established by Augustus Caesar (63 BC - 14 AD), the successor of Julius Caesar, remained the same till the last quarter of the third century, nearly 300 years; the defect of the system was that it lacked a central reserve and in the last quarter of the third century it was reorganised. The new organisation divided the army into a regular field army called the ‘Comitatenses’ which was commanded by the emperor himself, it had foot soldiers organised as ‘legiones’ about 1,000 strong and cavalry called ‘vexillationes’ (banners) of about 500 troopers. At the frontiers of the empire were the ‘limitanei’ (frontier militia) and ‘riparienses’ (camp garrisons) were located at various places; besides these there were the ‘palatini’ the palace guards. The Roman tactics were rooted in the idea that infantry was the decisive arm but it had become increasingly defensive relying on missile power, archers, slingers and war engines.

Cavalry, men fighting mounted on horses, was introduced by the Assyrians in about 900 BC; at that time and till about the fourth century AD, horses were ridden without a stirrup with the rider gripping the horse with his knees which made it dificult for him to effectively wield a sword or use other weapons. Because of its ineffectiveness, the cavalry could only harass infantry formed up in battle formation or protect flanks or the rear, it was not an arm of decision. The stirrup was innovated somewhere in the east, the date and place is not known, it was brought to Europe by the Goths and the Huns; with his feet in the stirrup the rider became sure of his seat and could effectively use his weapons with advantage over a dismounted man, this made the cavalry decisive.

On the frontiers of the Roman empire, nomadic tribes constantly made incursions into the empire and clashed with the Romans; these nomads did not have organised armies; they moved as tribes, the men mounted on horses and their possessions in carts with which they formed a defensive laager when they stopped. From these bases mounted parties moved out to raid and pillage, whole areas were laid waste and the entire population killed to create terror and clear their rear of a hostile population. When the nomads were attacked the laager formed the base which held the attacking enemy while bands of horse-archers attacked the flanks and the rear of the enemy.

 The military weakness of these nomads was in their inability to storm walled cities and fortresses and also in their requirement to keep moving because they lived off the countryside and had to move when it was depleted.

The Goths, supposedly inhabitants of Scandinavia, migrated to the upper Vistula from there they moved south to the Danube and then east to occupy the region between the Pruth and the Don where they split to become the Visigoths (West Goths), and Ostrogoths (East Goths).

 The Visigoths came in contact with the Romans in AD 238 in the area which is now northern Bulgaria, fighting went on till AD 270 when peace was established and lasted nearly a hundred years then they were driven from their territory by the Huns and were allowed by the Romans to cross the Danube to settle in Thrace; in the last quarter of the fourth century they started the plundering of Roman territory and were joined by the Ostrogoths, in 378 AD, the combined force of Visi and Ostrogoths moved against the Romans.

 The Roman Emperor Valens when he heard of the concentration of the Goths moved his court from Antioch to Constantinople and appointed a general, Sebastianus, to confront the Goths. Sebastianus occupied Adrianople and using it as base put in a night attack on a large party of Goths and destroyed them. The success of Sebastianus excited the emperor, ill advised by his courtiers, he moved his army from Constantinople to Adrianople and leaving his baggage wagons under the walls of Adrianople marched towards the Gothic laager.

After marching about eight miles, at about noon, the Romans sighted the Gothic laager, they were exhausted, straggling badly, their right wing cavalry was in the van, the infantry followed and the left wing cavalry covered the rear. The emperor drew up his right wing cavalry to cover the deployment of the ‘legiones’. The Gothic horsemen were away foraging, to gain time the leader of the Goths sent an embassy to the Roman emperor asking for peace and set fire to the crops in the area where the Romans were deploying. Tactically the Romans could not storm the laager because of the missiles that would have been hurled at them and because it meant the breaking up of the rigid infantry lines which once broken would be at the mercy of the Gothic cavalry.

 Romans were still deploying when the Gothic cavalry appeared, it charged the Roman right wing cavalry and routed it; the Roman left wing cavalry advanced to the laager but was beaten back by superior numbers. With the Roman cavalry defeated their infantry was left without flank protection, the Gothic cavalry turned on the Roman infantry with arrows and lances and then Gothic commander launched his infantry from the laager which routed the Romans; about two thirds of the Roman army, 40,000 men, were killed.

The Battle of Adrianople demonstrated the ascendancy of cavalry over infantry brought about by the invention and use of the stirrup.Up to the Battle of Adrianople, infantry was the decisive arm relying on shock weapons and had little to fear from cavalry as long as it maintained its formation. With the advent of the firmly mounted heavy cavalryman the infantry increasingly became dependent on  missile weapons which loosened its ranks and caused disordering of the ranks; infantry which had traditionally stood behind a wall of shields with spears and swords had to be mixed with a firing line of archers and slingers to stop cavalry charges; this problem was partially solved by the ‘socket bayonet’ on the musket but the cavalry was not stopped till the rifle increased the firepower of the infantry at the end of the nineteenth century.

2. The Early Muslims

A hundred years after the death of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) the Muslims, emerging from Arabia, conquered a part of France, Spain, the Mediterranean coast of Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Persia, the Mediterranean islands of Sicily, Rhodes and Cyprus, forcing the frontiers of the Roman empire across the Dardanelles to Constantinople. This Muslim expansion was based on good leadership, morale and the dependence on cavalry.

The Muslim Arabs, when they emerged from the deserts of Arabia, had no military system comparable to the Romans. Because they lived as tribes, every male member of the tribe learnt the use of weapons and fought when called upon to do so, either in the defence of the tribe or to raid other tribes. The Prophet himself fought in nine battles and took part in 17 raids out of the 38 raids that took place in his lifetime.

 Fighting as tribes the Muslims relied on their personal courage rather than on the science of war, their morale was always high due to the enthusiasm for ‘jehad’ and the lack of fear of death due to the quest for ‘shahadat’, these gave the Muslims a chain of victories.

The factor which made a major contribution to the Muslim victories was that they depended on cavalry and mobility, most of the Muslim Arabs were mounted on horses and camels; the other factors were hardiness, they were hardy due to their desert living which gave them endurance and meagre wants which enabled them to live off the country and fight without large maintenance trains. The tribal system, raiding and sacking cities for loot, meant loose discipline, which sometimes led to looting before a battle had been won.

The weapons the Muslim Arabs used were customary in that age, the lance, javelin, bow and arrows and a short curved sword called the scimitar which was small, slender and ineffectual in appearance but deadly in the hands of those who knew how to use it; some carried a small round shield. No fixed organisation existed; the tribes formed up in one, two or three lines, closely packed, with the mounted men on the flanks.

Before a battle champion fighters challenged the enemy champions to individual combat; battles started with quick attacks, the attacking force withdrew without hesitation when it saw that no further advantage was to be gained; the attacks were repeated till the enemy showed signs of weakness or ran out of arrows, then a decisive charge with vigour, fury and zeal was driven home to decide the battle.

The Battle of Yarmuk (636 AD)

The Caliph Abu Bakar invaded the Roman province of Syria with four forces about 7,000 each, which started from Madina in April 634 AD; Yazeed led one force with Damascus as his objective, Shurahbeel and Abu Ubaida had Emessa as their objective and Amr bin Aas was to enter Palestine between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba.

Yazeed contacted the Romans and followed their withdrawal to Daun near Gaza, defeated them and concentrated in north eastern Jordan. By the third week of May the invading force had established that a large Roman force was concentrating at Ajnaein; the Caliph on being informed about the concentration ordered Khalid bin Walid to march from Hira in Iraq with half his force and assume command of the Muslim forces.

Khalid with an army of 9,000 marched 140 miles, from Hira to Suwa, across a waterless desert, in six days, masked Damascus and by-passed it going to Busra and asked Ubaida to join him. Abu Ubaida on receipt of the Caliph’s order anticipated a junction at Busra and dispatched Shurahbeel who marched to Busra and was involved in fighting there when Khalid joined him and they captured Busra after a short siege.

The Romans concentrated at Ajnadein, Khalid ordered all Muslim forces to concentrate there and defeated the Romans. He then by-passed Jerusalem and invested Damascus, the Romans sent a relieving force from Emessa, which was intercepted and defeated. The Roman garrison tried to break out of Damascus but could not do so, finally Khalid scaled the walls of the city at one end while at the other end the city surrendered to Ubaida.

During the siege of Damascus the caliph relieved Khalid and appointed Ubaida as the overall commander. Operations continued, the Romans were defeated at Fahl and Marj-ur-Rum and Emessa and Qinassareen; they paid a ransom to be left un-molested for a year. When the Romans reinforced Emessa, it was besieged but could not be taken so the Muslim army lifted the siege and marched away, when the Romans followed, the Muslims turned around defeated them and Emessa surrendered. After the surrender of Emessa the Muslim force dispersed, Khalid and Ubaida stayed at Emessa, Yazeed invested Caesaria, Shurahbeel went to Jordan and Amr to Palestine.

In the spring of 636 AD the Roman emperor Heraclius sent an army of about 50,000 under Theodorous Trithurius who planned to concentrate at Emessa from several directions and to cut off the Muslim rear at Damascus. The Muslims learnt of the plan from prisoners, on Khalid’s advice they withdrew from Damascus and concentrated a force of about 25,000, south east of the Yarmuk valley where they deployed with their left flank protected by the ravine of the Yarmuk river.

The Romans after making contact deployed with a ravine of the tributary of the Yarmuk river, Wadi-ul-Raggad, behind them. The Roman deployment had a screen of Christian Arab light cavalry covering four groups of infantry and heavy cavalry protected the rear. The Muslims also deployed in four groups, commanded by Amr, Shurabeel, Ubaida and Yazeed, two cavalry groups of 2,000 each protected the rear and a cavalry reserve of 4,000 under Khalid waited further back.

The two forces confronted each other for about a month before battle was joined; the fighting on the first four days was not decisive, the Romans repeatedly broke the Muslim left, centre and right but Khalid commanding the Muslim cavalry reserve skilfully attacked the unprotected Roman flanks and restored the Muslim front every time the Romans broke it. A unique feature of this battle was that whenever the Muslim front broke and the men ran back to their camp, the women, camp followers threw stones at them, beat them with sticks and sent them back to fight.

On the fifth day there was a lull, during the night Khalid secured the crossing in the rear of the Romans over Wadi-ur-Raggad with 500 men. On the sixth day Khalid and Amr attacked the Roman left, Amr commanding the Arab right attacked frontally while Khalid’s cavalry attacked the rear and simultaneously drove off the Roman cavalry protecting the left flank, the Roman left broke. Shurahbeel then frontally attacked the next group while Amr attacked from the flank, the Romans broke, they could not retreat along the road because of Khalid’s cavalry was denying the ford over the Wadi, the Romans were literally pushed into the ravine and destroyed. The battle of Yarmuk was won by Khalid bin Walid by the use of his cavalry to retrieve setbacks and to manoeuvre and cut the Roman line of retreat.

This battle extended the Muslim domain to Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Turkey ending the Byzantine rule, in 637 AD  Persia was conquered, in 641 AD the Persian Gulf was reached and Egypt was conquered; the Muslim conquests stopped in Europe at Constantinople in 718 AD when the siege of Constantinople had to be lifted and at Poiters in France where they were defeated.

Battle of Poitiers

The Muslim invasion of Africa reached the shores of the Atlantic Ocean about the year 710 AD then about 400 Muslims crossed the straits, raided Spanish territory and returned. The next year 7,000 men under the command of Tariq ibn Ziyad landed at Gibraltar, in 712 AD Musa ibn Nusair assumed the command of the Muslim force, he conquered the whole of Spain and began raiding across the Pyrenes but was recalled by the Caliph in Damascus.

France at this time was divided between the Gauls in Aquitine, the area adjoining Spain, ruled by Duke Eudo and the Franks in the north ruled by Charles. Hurr, who succeeded Musa, sent plundering expeditions across the Pyrenes into Aquitine, in 719 Narbonne was occupied but when Toulouse was besieged by the Muslims they were defeated by Eudo. The Muslims returned in 725 and moving up the Rhone valley overran Burgundy and reached the Vosges mountains; Charles at this time was fighting on the Danube.

The Duke of Eudo, to secure his southern frontier, made a pact with Usman, the ruler of the Muslim territories along the Pyrenes; Abd-er-Rehman, the Governor of Spain, marched against Usman and defeated him in 731. After defeating Usman, Abd-er-Rehman moved into Gascony, advanced towards Bordeaux defeated Eudo, stormed, plundered and burnt the city; he then advanced to Poitiers, invested it, then moved towards Tours invested it and continued his advance.

Charles, after completing his Danube conquests returned and attacked Eudo’s territory who caught between Charles and Abr-er-Rehman submitted to Charles’ control. Charles and Eudo then crossed the Loire river and advanced towards Tours.

Abd-er-Rehman’s army consisted of cavalry armed with swords and lances, very few wore armour and bows were not used, they lived off the country; their tactic was headlong uncontrolled charges. The Frankish army was solely infantry which had fought in many wars, it was aided by a militia of local levies who did the foraging.

The Muslims were surprised by the sudden appearance of Charles with his Frankish army near Tours. Heavily weighed down by their plunder they had lost their mobility and flexibility, for seven days the two armies faced each other; Charles waited for the arrival of his levies, Abd-er-Rehman used the time to withdraw his plunder southwards then withdrew to Poitiers where he decided to give battle to allow the plunder to be carried back.

Charles drew up his army in a solid square, the Muslim cavalry, purely an offensive force, repeatedly charged but was not able to break the formation. The Frankish infantry attacked both horses and the riders with swords and axes, towards the evening Eudo turned the Muslim flank and attacked their camp which forced the Muslims to fall back, then they discovered that Abr-er-Rehman had been killed; leaderless, during the night the Muslims fled leaving behind their plunder.

This battle was fought between a Muslim army composed only of cavalry and while the Franks had only infantry with protected flanks; the Muslim cavalry was not able to dislodge the Frankish infantry and had to retreat when their flank was turned.

This battle marked the extent of the Muslim advance in western Europe; Spain was ruled by the Muslims for eight hundred years but they did not cross the Pyrenes again. For his victory over the Muslims, two centuries later, Charles was given the surname ‘Martel’, “The Hammer”.

3. The Feudal System (900-1500 AD)

The Roman empire in its decline first divided into western and eastern empires, the western empire disintegrated into a number of states while the eastern empire, after losing its Asian territories, continued as the Byzantine empire till the Turks sacked Constantinople in 1453.

In the seventh century, the western empire, attacked by barbarians from the east and the Muslims from Spain in the west, divided into a number of states. The people of these states had been long accustomed to Roman rule and protection, with the disappearance of Roman protection they became subject to raids by the Vikings from Sweden and the Magyars from Hungary. The Vikings, because they raided rather than occupied territory, created a problem because they would suddenly raid and disappear, this forced the people to create militias for defence which developed into the ‘Feudal System’ in Europe.

The basis of the feudal system was the method of Roman conscription in the later Roman rule where military service liability was proportionate to land holdings. At the time of the collapse of the Roman power there were large land holders who were permitted to assume hereditary lord-ship and militatry command over the countryside that they controlled, they became the lords, dukes and counts.

The law governing the feudal system was based on hereditary vassals holding land given to them by kings, in return they provided a specified number of armed men for a fixed number of days in the year and were responsible for the defence of their area, they had to maintain a fort or a castle for their residence and the refuge of the population under their protection. The system solved the problem of local defence, it produced trained and equipped troops but the loyalty of the troops was to the local commander and not to the king who was powerless against a combination of lords.

In the feudal armies the armoured knight formed the heavy cavalry, only the rich could afford armour, the knight’s tenants assisted him, they were without armour and were called ‘sergeants’, the number of ‘sergeants’ that a knight had depended on his status, capability of paying and varied from two upwards. The term ‘sergeant’ later applied to mounted men-at-arms, not of noble blood, who were paid for their service. Apart from ‘sergeants’ knights had mounted personal attendants called ‘squires’. The training of the knight took several years, it included religion, respect and reverence of seniors and superiors, court ceremony and the use of various weapons.

Besides the mounted feudal levies townsmen when organised as infantry were called “municipal troops”.

 To overcome the limited time service liability of the feudal levies, resort was made to mercenaries but these usually turned out to be indiscriminate looters and only conducted major or extended operations when they were exceptionally motivated. William the Conqueror motivated his army with the promise of the distribution of the conquered land, the Crusaders who fought against the Muslims were motivated by priests by an assured place in heaven and rule over the ‘holy land.’

Tactics of feudal armies depended on the presence or absence of infantry. When infantry was not there, there was no firm base and a battle was a rapidly shifting cavalry fight decided by dash and the judicious use of reserves. When infantry was present it formed a firm base of pike men from which the heavily armoured knights operated with the object of the destruction of the enemy’s infantry base. Heavily armoured cavalry could not charge and dislodge determined pike men, stratagems and ruses had to be used to induce the infantry to break its defensive formation or to separate the infantry from the cavalry and then defeat each in turn.

 During this period there was no major change in weapons or in organisation and tactical doctrine as written by Vegetius in ‘Re de Militari’, in Roman times, was followed.

The Battle of Hattin

The tactics of defeating the enemy by separating the armoured knight from his infantry base is highlighted by the battle of Hattin, fought in 1187 AD, between the Crusaders and the Muslims.

Emperor Alexius Comneus, after being defeated by the Muslims in the battle of Manzikert, in 1071, appealed to the Pope for help. For about twenty four years the Christians of Europe remained involved in their own quarrels but in 1095 there was a tremendous response when the Pope appealed by stating that the Muslims had disgraced the Christians by their victories, the Holy Land, which belonged to the Christians, had been profaned, he asked Christian rulers to turn their weapons ‘against these enemies of God’ and in 1096 the Crusaders set off for Palestine.

The Muslims at this time were divided amongst themselves and were not able to offer serious resistance, in 1098 the Crusaders defeated the Seljuk Turks, captured Jerusalem and massacred its population; the Crusaders remained in control of the ‘Holy Land’ for eighty five years.

Salahuddin (Salah-ad-din Yusuf ibn Ayyub) a Kurdish officer in the service of the Amir of Syria was confirmed to the titles of sultan of Egypt and Syria in 1174 AD by the Caliph in Baghdad. Salahuddin’s authority was linked to military power based on cavalry which made the horse important militarily and as a social factor since amongst the settled population horses could only be maintained by those who could afford the forage.

In fighting, the Muslims used Parthian tactics, a charge followed by a retreat, the horse was not employed for shock but as a means for an archer to ride up to the enemy and shoot to break the enemy’s line or lure him out of his position by retiring. This required a high standard of horsemanship gained by military exercises, hunting, polo and cavalry training; because of the high standards of horsemanship that was required recruits were hired, trained and equipped by leaders who could afford the services. The tactics were well suited for small formations of men with high individual skills of fighting on horseback, troops of this type followed their leaders and reacted on their own initiative to changing situations but larger formations had a tactical weakness because there was no system for the transmission of orders for collective action.

Salahuddin used banners, drums and messengers to convey his intentions and it was important for everyone to know where he was located to prevent parts of the army acting on their own, he organised his army with a right, a centre and left, two wings, a vanguard, a rearguard, the organisation was flexible, it was based on a number of self-contained units which ensured that when one was charged the others could move to attack the flanks and the rear of the enemy, the tactical unit was the ‘tulb’, a squadron of 200 horse commanded by an ‘emir’.

Salahuddin consolidated his position in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia and then turned his attention to the Christian kingdoms created by the Crusaders in Palestine. When the Franks (European crusaders settled in Palestine) broke a truce that permitted Muslim caravans to pass through Christian territory by paying a toll, Salahuddin took to the field. He moved from Aleppo, his troops moved from Egypt, and contingents from Damascus and the Euphrates. Salahuddin,with about 12,000 cavalry and horse archers, who with their retainers and servants totalled about 30,000, positioned his force near the city of Tiberius on the coast of the Sea of Galilee; the Christians army of 12,000 knights and about 18,000 infantry and some mounted archers, concentrated at Sepphoris, 16 miles from Tiberius. Salahuddin tried to entice the Franks out of their position but was not successful, he then split his army and attacked the city of Tiberius which was stormed and plundered and only a small garrison remained which was being reduced when word came that the Franks were on the move.

The Frankish army, in three divisions, a vanguard, centre and a rearguard, moved east towards the Sea of Galilee, under observation by Salahuddin’s scouts it reached a spring at the village of Turan, the only watering point in the area. From there the Franks had the choice of camping at the spring or marching to Tiberius, they decided on the latter, Salahuddin countered by sending both his wings around the Frankish force to seize the spring where the Franks had watered  and blocked their retreat while he himself held a ridge with his main force blocking the advance. The Franks tried to change direction towards the village of Hattin but eventually were forced to camp, without water and supplies.

Salahuddin detailed skirmishers from each squadron who harassed the Franks all night.

Relying on his archers to counter the Frankish armoured knights the next day, by shooting the horses because the knight’s armour made them secure against arrows but their horses were vulnerable as horse armour was not common; for this Salahuddin distributed 400 loads of arrows and had further supplies ready.

 The next morning the Franks resumed their march towards Tiberius under distressing conditions with everybody thirsty. The Frankish infantry and cavalry covered each other well, Salahuddin, observing this, sent his centre to march out ahead of the Franks and to position itself across their front, the Frankish infantry formed into a single body and climbed to the summit of hill and refused to come down and form with the cavalry. The Muslims now positioned themselves between the cavalry and the infantry, set fire to the scrub so that the flames and smoke were blown by the wind on the Frankish infantry, some of which deserted, the rest were charged and destroyed.

The Frankish cavalry, cut off from their infantry and seeing it destroyed fought their way through one of Salahuddin’s wings, the wing opened its ranks, allowed the charge to sweep through while the archers shot the riders and the horses. 30,000 Franks were killed and 3,000 taken prisoner.

4. The Mongols – (1205-1240 AD)

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, around 1205 AD the Mongols emerged from the steppes of Central Asia and in about thirty five years conquered half the then known world; they created an empire larger than the Roman and Muslim conquests, extending from the Pacific coast of China, across Asia to Hungary in Europe. For the Muslim world this was a major disaster as the Mongol conquests went through the Muslim domains of Central Asia, Persia, Asia Minor up to Egypt.

The Mongol army was wholly of cavalry; their light cavalry scouted, skirmished and harassed, they carried two or three bows, three quivers of arrows, an axe and a rope for dragging carts and vehicles, some men had scimitars or lances with hooks for pulling an enemy horseman off his horse. The heavy cavalry delivered the decisive charge, it was armed with lances and sabres, carried an axe, wore a protective coat of hard leather or mail coats captured from the enemy.

The Mongol army was remarkably well organised, well officered and commanded by very capable generals; it was completely mobile, not hampered by any infantry when the rest of the world had a combination of infantry and cavalry.

The Mongol organisation was a troop of ten, a squadron of one hundred, a regiment of one thousand and a division called a ‘touman’ of 10,000. A number of ‘toumans’ were grouped to form the left, centre and the right wings of an army.

Each level of their organisation level was commanded by a person who had won his place by his ability and valour on the battlefield; the two greatest generals in Changez Khan’s army, Sabutai and Chepe, rose to high command before they were 25 years old.

The Mongols moved dispersed over a large area, often in parallel columns, the movement of independent columns was controlled and synchronised by couriers. The column that made contact, held the enemy or withdrew while the other columns moved on to cut off the enemy’s supply lines. In Europe and Asia, it became customary to retire into a fortress when faced with a superior force; forts and towns in the route of the Mongols were invested by a ‘touman’ or a larger force, the Mongols depended on their mobility or stratagem to enter fortified towns but when necessary they conducted sieges and locally constructing siege weapons.

While advancing, when the enemy’s army was contacted the whole force quickly concentrated to attack. For attacks the Mongols used to form five lines, the two in front of heavy cavalry, the three in the rear of light cavalry. When battle was joined, light cavalry scouts, moved through the heavy cavalry and harassed the enemy, then the second and third light cavalry lines passed through the heavy cavalry to attack the enemy with javelins and arrows, when the enemy became disorganised, the light cavalry retired and the heavy cavalry made the decisive charge. On a battlefield, movement and deployment was controlled by signals with black and white flags.

The Battle of Gran

The Mongols, under Changez Khan, swept out of their homeland, attacked North China, defeated Khorezm Shah, the ruler of Turkestan in 1220, and Subutai and Chepe, the Mongol generals, conquered Russia. In 1227 Changez Khan died and for about ten years, the succession disputes prevented further conquests.

Batu, who inherited Russia from Juchi, reinforced by the Great Khan Ogotai in 1235, crushed the Bulgars, destroyed Ryazan, Moscow, Vladimir, and Suzdal and defeated the Cumans in 1239, burnt Kiev in 1240 and then advanced westwards.

Rumours of the terrible powers of the Mongols spread through Europe, the people prayed “from the Mongols O Lord, deliver us”, all the rulers hastened to fortify their frontiers and appealed for help, the Pope seconded the appeal, but the rulers failed to unite.

The Mongols, under Sabutai, concentrated twelve ‘toumans’, organised in four forces of three ‘toumans’ each, east of the Carpathians with objective of capturing Gran, the capital of Hungary. One army was sent northwards, in a series of lightning campaigns, it crossed the Vistula defeated the Poles at Chmielnik, took Cracow and Breslau and crushed a German army at Liegnitz. This force marched 400 miles in about a month and brought the territory between the borders of Saxony and the Vistula, including Silesia and Poland under Mongol rule.

 With the enemy destroyed in the north and his right flank secure, Sabutai moved into Hungary in three widely separated columns, the two flanking columns moving first and the centre column following later; the right column crossed the Carpathian mountains moved into Moravia and joined the centre column in the area of Gran. The left column moved southwards parallel to the Carpathian, it crossed into Transylvania and joined the centre column at Gran. The centre column, commanded by Sabutai, crossed the Carpathians at Ruska and concentrated at Gran by a rapid march in which the advance guard did 200 miles in three days. Concentrated across the Danube from Gran, Sabutai decided to make the Hungarians fight with the Danube behind them and started withdrawing.

The Hungarians had concentrated an army of 100,000 at Gran and had taken no action against the approaching Mongol columns, when the Mongols started withdrawing they advanced. The Mongols retreated for six days and took up a position with the Sajo river between them and the Hungarians. Leaving a large force in his camp on the river bank, Sabutai took his main force down stream, crossed the river and formed up for battle on the flank of the Hungarians. The next morning the holding force on the bank of the river attacked frontally and Sabutai from the flank and the rear annihilating the Hungarians and inflicting 70,000 casualties. This is considered one of the greatest battles of Sabutai, who conquered thirty two nations and won sixty five battles.

5. Defence Against Cavalry (1300-1500 AD )

The Romans tackled the problem of defence against cavalry soon after the battle of Adrianople in 378 AD, the Roman legions were armed with pikes to cope with the cavalry. The pike was a 21 foot spear with the three feet of the business end made of iron so that it could not be cut off.

While the pike solved the problem of keeping the cavalry man at a distance, it had the drawback that to use it, it had to be held parallel to the ground in deep and close formation and could not be traversed. Pikemen, were like the Greek phalanx, they were useful in close formation, movement by pikemen was not practical because it caused gaps, they could not close gaps in their formation when these occurred they were at the mercy of any infantry or cavalry which entered these gaps.

In feudal Europe the cavalry that developed was the rich nobleman protected by armour who kept increasing his armour protection till he was completely armoured, when completely armoured he could not get up if he fell off his horse. The horse being vulnerable to enemy weapons was also given armour protection till it carried about 140 pounds of armour and the armoured rider. To cope with his armoured opponent the armoured knight had to carry a heavy, thick, long lance. Encumbered by weight, armed with an unwieldy weapon, unable to gallop or wheel to deliver flanking attacks, this heavy cavalry man could only charge to his front.

Across the Mediterranean, in the Muslim world, the cavalry armour remained light and the cavalry continued to manoeuvre. The Turkish light cavalry was copied by the Albanians and the Moorish light cavalry by the Spanish and introduced into Europe from these sources, the European light cavalry became the ‘Hussars’ of the European armies.

The bow as a missile weapon was used from the earliest times. The range and the penetrating power of the short bow was increased by the invention of the cross-bow which had a mechanical device for pulling back the bow string and increased the range and penetration but at the cost of the rate of fire.

Towards the end of the twelfth century, the Welsh invented the long bow. This weapon was six feet four inches long, it shot an arrow accurately up to 250 yards which could penetrate one inch of hard wood or two layers of mail armour. In range and penetration the long bow was about the same as the cross bow but the rate of fire was three to four times that of the cross-bow. This rapid rate of fire increased the vulnerability of the cavalry in the attack due to the horses being shot under the rider.

The long bow became an English weapon, from 1252 AD, small land holders were required to have a bow and carry out compulsory archery practice on Sundays, this created a standing militia of bow men. These bow men had to have their hair cut short to prevent it from entangling with the bow string, this became a tradition of the British army to have their hair cut short.

Soon after the battle of Adrianople (378 AD), the Roman legions were armed with pikes to cope with cavalry; the pike was 21 feet long spear with three feet made of iron so that it could not be cut off.

While the pike solved the problem of keeping the cavalry at a distance, it had the drawback that it had to be held parallel to the ground in deep close formation and could not be traversed; pikemen were like the Greek phalanx, they were useful in close formation but could not close gaps when these occurred and then they were at the mercy of the infantry or cavalry which entered a gap.

The Swiss resolved the difficulty of maintaining formation while moving with pikes by drilling with pikes and learning to move without creating gaps, because of this capability Swiss pikemen came to be hired by most European armies.

The Swiss also introduced a new weapon, the ‘halberd’, a combination of the axe and the spear with an eight foot handle, this weapon was effective against the armour of the cavalry and could decapitate a horse with one stroke.

Well drilled pikemen now formed a square with halberdiers at the corners, this was reversion to the Greek phalanx of protruding spear points with the difference that this formation could manoeuvre. These Swiss ‘squares’ usually formed in three groups in echelon, they either tried to envelop a flank or penetrate the enemy’s centre using a wedge formation. When they were themselves threatened with envelopment they formed a square for all round defence. As the fame of the Swiss infantry grew and Europe recognised their unique capability, war became the chief means of livelihood of the Swiss and mercenary Swiss infantry became part of every European army.

The long bow with its range, penetration and rate of fire; the pike with its ability to stop a horseman at a distance; the halberd with its ability to keep a horse-man at a distance and to decapitate a horse; and the Swiss infantry square which could manoeuvre, reduced the role of cavalry on the battlefield but it still remained the arm of decision.

The Battle of Crecy

The Battle of Crecy in 1346 AD shows the use of the cross bow and the effect of the long bow on the armoured cavalry.

In 1337 AD the Hundred Years War of dynastic succession between England and France started and lasted for 116 years; in 1344 AD Edward III of England claimed the French throne and set about organising his army. He considered feudal levies as unsuitable for war on the continent of Europe and decided to organise an army of picked men by ‘Commission of Array’ a kind of a census in which a list of landlords was compiled, those who owned land or paid rents of five pounds were ordered to find one archer, those rated at ten pounds one ‘hobeler’, a mounted infantry man, spearman or archer, those worth twenty five pounds or more one man-at-arms; the scale increased upwards to the great feudal lords who raised well organised retinues. Land owners who were not able to serve in person were allowed to find substitutes or were fined.

Edward III landed in France, on the Cotenin Peninsular with a fighting strength of about 10,000 men and three cannons; the army was well organised, disciplined and paid by the king; it moved across Normandy up to the Seine River sacking and ravaging the towns without any strategic aim. When Edward learnt that the French had collected an army two and a half times the number of his army, he withdrew across the Seine and the Somme, secured a line of retreat to the Dover ports and then turned around to face the French; he selected a good battle field where his right flank was protected by the village of Crecy and a marsh, the left rested on the village of Wadicourt and to secure this flank further, he placed his wagons there; the front from Crecy to Wadicourt was about 3,000 yards.

The tactics developed by Edward III were defensive, he usually deployed in three ‘battles’ or divisions, two in front of dismounted cavalry with a gap in between for the third, the third in between the two front battles but in the rear, either mounted or ready to mount, was held in reserve. The archers formed on the flanks of the battles forming a concave arc with the battle in the centre and the two inner flanking archers meeting in an angle. The two outer bodies of archers, where possible, rested on an obstacle, a wood or a village and they dug trenches and drove iron stakes, on their fronts, to stop cavalry charges. At Crecy the right battle had about 800 men-at-arms, 1200 archers, 1000 Welshmen who were half archers and half spearmen; the left battle had 800 men-at-arms and 1200 archers; the rear battle had 700 men-at-arms and 2000 archers; a total force of about 8500.

King Phillip of France gathered his army at Abbeville, it consisted of of 8000 men-at-arms and 4000 foot, organised in three battles. Not knowing the location of the English he sent a reconnaissance party of one lord and three knights who located the English position and reported it to the king, suggesting that the French should halt for the night, concentrate and attack the next day and the king agreed to the suggestion. There was confusion in halting the marching column, the leading element continued till it saw the English deployment and fell back while those in the rear pressed forward and to add to this there was a thunder storm and a total eclipse of the sun.

After the storm the French brought forward their Genoese crossbow men, they gave battle cries to frighten the English as they approached the English position and when in range started shooting with their cross bows. The English archers returned the fire with such force and rapidity that the Genoese retreated in confusion and the French king shouted to kill them as they were blocking the roads. A French battle went forward, the English archers started shooting at the horsemen and the horses sending the horses mad and out of control of their riders, as the French knights fell off their horses, the Welshmen armed with long knives killed them.

The second French battle could not charge because the battlefield was cluttered with the Genoese and the first battle. The French king lead the third battle but it only added to the confusion, in all the French charged fifteen times without a concerted plan, just bands of knights with the idea of closing with the enemy. The French cavalry, to avoid the trenches and arrows, charged the dismounted English battles and the English archers raked their flanks. This combination of missiles and shock action was superior to the French reliance on   charges by armoured cavalry and dismounted armoured knights.

1542 French knights and esquires were killed and more than 10,000 soldiers, the English lost two knights, one esquire, forty men-at-arms and archers and about twenty Welshmen.