posted 07-11-2003 08:46 PM               

As for the free men... uhhh, I dunno. Freedom is hard to define. Personal stock in the fight and morale is important, yes, no doubt about that.

In modern wars with conscription, nobody is free. In even the old days men were often compelled to serve.

Morale is important, and if you're treated like total trash that will lower your morale. But, to me, this sounds like attempt to equate moral superiority with battlefield effectiveness. I think this is misguided.

Authoritarian societies can inspire high morale in their troops, and "free" nations can field forces of, more or less, slaves (being drafted is basically just an extremely unpleasant form of slavery).

posted 07-13-2003 07:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brock H:
Then how to explain Nazi Germany beating England & France in 1940? And you can't say that ultimately those countries won and Germany lost. If Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR and the US hadn't entered the war, France would have remained subjegated and Britain would probably have ultimately been forced to terms since she could not have dealt with the U-boat menace by herself; the Royal Navy was stretched too thin in too many places.

---

posted 07-14-2003 08:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roel Oosterop:
[Earlier this year, a Wellington bomber was dug up from the peat near Kamerik and the remains of her all Canadian crew, after sixty long years, were brought to their final rest.
Regards, Roel

---

posted 07-14-2003 09:20 AM               

(I also strongly second your feelings against Anglocentrism in history. It would indeed be very unfair to talk about the Hundred Years War as the only medieval conflict worth mentioning.)

I always find comments about Anglocentrism and the Hundred Years War rather interesting. After all, until the 1990s, the greatest historian of the war, indeed most historians of the war, were French. And, the Hundred Years War certainly had a more profound influence upon France and the continent than it did upon England. The War has been romanticised in English-speaking countries, true enough, but that's really a different story.

As for pride of place, it would be unfair to deny the Hundred Years War its due or to regard this preeminence as the result of something called "Anglocentrism". As regards scope, number of combatants, influence upon state institutions as well as the course of Europe's future, no other medieval conflict comes close to the consequences, intended or otherwise of the Hundred Years War.

Just a few points to back this statement up. 1.) The war was fought between the two most most highly developed nation-states in Europe at the time. France and England were able to call upon resources in a way no other state (and I use the word loosely)could. 2.) By the time the conflict ended almost every neighboring state had been drawn into it including the Scots, the Spanish crowns, the Italian states, the Germany princes, the Papacy, and eventually the results of the War ended the experiment in developing a Burgundian nation-state. No other conflict during the Middle Ages created such an upheaval. 3.) The Hundred Years War created new ways of governing in the combatanbt states, but nowhere as extreme as in France; many of the old French institutions did not survive the war. The most notable of these innovations were, of course, the methods and more importantly, the justifications of war taxation on the part of the French kings which laid the cornerstones for the creation of French absolutism decades later which greatly influenced the development of the modern world. 4.) Institutions changed in states other than the two major combatants. One of the best examples is the demise of many of the great banking houses of Italy due to the monarchy's of both France and England (especially Edward III's) inability and/or unwillingness to repay their loans. Their fall led to the establishment of new banking families, most notable the rise of the Medici, and their subsequent, undeniable influence on the course of European history.

The wars of the Scots against the English, the Poles against the Teutonic Knights, the Swiss against the Hapsburgs, Hungarians and Slavs against the Turks, Spaniards against Moors, and the Czechs against Germans and the Church all aroused passionate, almost nationalistic sentiments of patriotism. Most of these were, however, local affairs. None of the conflicts, however intense or important, altered the course of European history in as many ways, in as many countries, as did the Hundred Years War.

Regards,

posted 07-14-2003 12:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marshal:
This may be so when fighting to defend or to free one's own country; but when fighting as mercenaries for some other country, as the Swiss later went on to do?

---

It's said "a soldier is paid to die."
Doesn't say 'die for who'[m].

posted 07-26-2003 09:19 AM            

the swiss troops twice refused to surrender and where reduced down to 10 man. but they caused about 6-8000 french victims. this fighting spirit, and the the fact that the entire swiss army (about 20'000 man) where heading in fast march to the fields of st.jakob forced the french to back up to the upper alsace.

the chappel of st. jakob and the churchyard where the swiss bariccaded themselfes was never taken.

after the battle, the german knight burkhardt münch, a sworn enemy of the swiss, visited the battlefield. seeing so many swiss lying in their own blood, he spoke the famous words: " I think I see a rosegarden!" this was the last words he spoke, arnold schick, a townsmen of uri threw a stone at him with the words : "here, so eat one of this roses"

this is the memorial of the battle:

It shows Helvetia with her battle-weary warriors. the inscription on the front says: „ Unsere Seele Gott, unsere Leiber den Feinden“ "Our Souls to God, Our corps to the enemy"
the inscription on the backside says: "On XXVI August MCCCXXXXIIII, tired from wining, thirteenhundred swiss and allieds bernese, man from glarus from lucerne, from zug, from uri, from solothurn, from schwyz, from neuenburg, from unterwalden, from basle, died here in the battle against france and austria, the entire army"
„Am XXVI August MCCCXXXXIIII starben im Kampf gegen Frankreich und Österreich, vom Siegen ermüdet, dreizehnhundert Eidgenossen und Verbündete Berner, Glarner, Luzerner, Zuger, Urner, Solothurner, Schwizer, Neuenburger, Unterwaldner, Basler, das ganze Heer;"

the swiss reputation is mostly based on the battle of grandson, where the swiss carree hold the fire of the burgundian artillery and the wales archers, despite heavy loses the kept on marching forward.

posted 07-26-2003 08:52 PM               

What you've mentioned here is social and political changes and while I recognise that these can not be divorced from military history it sure would be nice to have a good view of what happened in the rest of Europe. And from a purely tactical and strategic point of view it might put to rest the English idea that the longbow was some sort of predecessor to the machine gun and that they were the premier army of the C14th. Let's face it, they weren't really capable of taking the offensive on the battlefield against the French and relied on the problems inherent in the French military to win. e.g. in Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt the French could've won by simply starving the English yet this would not satisfy the "chivalry" of the French.

BTW it's also worth pointing out that the U.S. army suggests using a local superiority of 10 to 1 to attack an enemy who has spent time fortifying his position. The French never managed to achieve that sort of numerical superiority and not surprislingly lost most of these battles.

Compare that to the Swiss record. Frequently took the offensive, strategically and tactically, never bothered with seiges, adopted new technology, dispensed with the battlefield supremacy of the knight and in the Cantons also dispensed with his social standing. They formed a new kind of "state" which fought under a unified symbol as early at 1339 while the English army in France was still a mercenary force. Now at this point you say this is a purely local thing and yeah? so what? They weren't drawing on French or English ideas while doing these things and the Swiss national character still reflects this. Which makes it important to the Swiss and to anyone trying to understand the whole of Europe during the C14th and C15th.

Many of the assertions you make about the Hyw are also not necessarily anything to do with the Hyw. The mini ice age and famines of 1306 to 1318 and beyond, the plague, the rise of cities, rise of factories etc etc etc, had nothing to do with the HYW yet certainly affected the whole of Europe in social, financial and political ways. The change in government in England? Was it any more revolutionary than that of Henry II? He just needed hurdles to leap and the energy to leap them both of which Edward III had without the HYW.

Oh and French monarchial authority could only be establish if Burgundy didn't control France which is something the Swiss did free of charge...

I could probably rattle of few more off the top of my head if I had enough books that didn't relate only to England and France during the Hyw. Anglo centrism? Ooooh yeah.

posted 07-27-2003 06:16 PM            

Most of what I know about Swiss warfare comes from an extremely abridged edition of Sir Charles Oman's 'Art of War in the Middle Ages'. Three or four pages of a very slim book are devoted to the Confederates.

I have a copy of a 19th century print that depicts a Swiss force swarming a shield wall of plate-armored knights. They seem to be breaking through over the body of a man who has thrown himself onto the hedge of lances held by the knights. Can anyone identify this scene? I'm sure that to a Swiss it is as easily recognizable as a picture of Crockett at the Alamo is to an American.

posted 07-28-2003 03:55 AM            

so much to the legend, its not 100% historically confirmed, however, the was a young commander named winkelried from the town of stans at the battle of sempach. in older sources i found the therm "gewaltwaffe, wuchtig und schwer" it seems that he used something like a bundle of spears or a log to break the austrian pikes.
today, winkelried is considers to be switzerlands national hereo, this is a picture of the winkelried memorial in stans:

an aquarell with the scene:

and another painting

this is not that a bad description of the battle:

quote:

---

Battle of Sempach - July 9, 1386

Leopold gathered more reinforcements from Burgundy and Swabia, and recruited infantry from the Helvetian areas already under Austrian control. In all the Duke had more than 22,000 men under arms. He advanced on July 1, 1386, at the head of 4,000 horsemen and a well armed infantry of some 18,000 men. His army, although marching in the direction of Lucerne, went by a roundabout way, burning several smaller towns in their line of march. Upon leaving the eastern shore of Sursee, the Austrians made their way slowly along the path which led from Sursee south to the heights and then turned suddenly down upon Sempach, a Habsburg possession, recently claimed by Lucerne.

Unknown to the Duke, some troops from Lucerne had hurriedly marched toward Sempach where they climbed the nearby heights on July 9th. They lay in wait at the junction of the Sursee and Hiltisrieden roads, near the Meyershoz woods. As they neared this crossroad the Duke's army suddenly came upon the Swiss force drawn up in their wedge shaped battle order. Their long swords and halberds were poised ready for battle.

The Duke ordered his first column of 1,500 men-of-arms to dismount and attack on foot because the land did not lend itself to cavalry movement. The Austrians formed a deep square bristling with lances and rushed the vanguard of Lucerners, killing 60, and slowly driving them back. The Duke had ordered his infantry to remain behind because the knights and other nobles wanted the honor of punishing the rude, low-born Swiss peasants facing them.

Just as victory seemed certain, 3,600 men, chiefly from the Everlasting League, Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, marched over the hill and rushed to the aid of their confederates. As the main body of Swiss infantry joined the battle Leopold dismounted his second column, but before these knights could fully deploy, the Swiss swarmed into their ranks wielding their deadly halberts and long swords.

Many Swiss patriots, including Arnold von Winkelried of Unterwalden, were killed at the decisive battle of Sempach, Monday, July 9, 1386. Brave von Winkelried changed the course of that battle. He stepped forward shouting to his comrades in arms, "I will open a path for you. Take care of my wife and children!" He ran toward the enemy who stood side by side with their lances thrust forward, seized all of the Austrian lances he could reach, and bore them to the ground with the weight of his body. This heroic effort provided an opening in the ranks of the enemy. His comrades rushed through the breach made by his body and began a fierce hand to hand encounter. A fearful carnage followed in which no mercy was shown.

At this point the third Austrian column turned and fled the field leaving the first two columns to their fate. During the relentless Swiss attack Leopold III, together with 670 of his dismounted knights and 2,000 of his foot soldiers, perished. The Swiss lost but 116 men at Sempach and the Habsburg power within the borders of the Confederation was finally broken.

---

posted 07-28-2003 09:57 AM               

(What you've mentioned here is social and political changes and while I recognise that these can not be divorced from military history it sure would be nice to have a good view of what happened in the rest of Europe.)

Social and political changes are what make wars noteworthy. Military victories are ephemeral. And as I pointed out in my first post, a large part of Europe became involved over time in the War. No war during the Middle Ages affected so large a part of Europe as did the Hundred Years War.

(And from a purely tactical and strategic point of view it might put to rest the English idea that the longbow was some sort of predecessor to the machine gun and that they were the premier army of the C14th.)

I don't really know of any historian who claims the English were the premier army of the 14th century. As for the longbow, I have addressed this issue in a long thread here some eight or so months ago. I don't understand this resistance to accept a weapon which distinguished itself time and again as a superior tactical weapon. Contemporary sources for the efficency of the longbow are listed in the thread I mentioned above. Numerous modern scholars including J.E.Morris, E. Perroy, and J. Sumption concur in the longbow's deserved reputation.

(BTW it's also worth pointing out that the U.S. army suggests using a local superiority of 10 to 1 to attack an enemy who has spent time fortifying his position.)

That's nice. I'm sure that if the US Army ever engages a medieval force, it will win in a breeze. Other than that, I see no relevance to this comment.

(Compare that to the Swiss record.)

Nobody denies that the Swiss were incomparable warriors. Their record on the battlefield speaks for itself.

(Many of the assertions you make about the Hyw are also not necessarily anything to do with the Hyw. The mini ice age and famines of 1306 to 1318 and beyond, the plague, the rise of cities, rise of factories etc etc etc, had nothing to do with the HYW yet certainly affected the whole of Europe in social, financial and political ways.)

True enough, but we're really not discussing a general social or political history of Europe here. The point I am making is that of all medieval conflicts, the one with the widest-ranging effects was the Hundred Years War. Studies of the effects of the war such as the one by Lucas on the Low Countries, Henneman on royal taxation in France, James on the medieval wine trade, Trautz on the effect of the war on the German states, E.B. Fryde's on financial instutions(especially the failures of the Bardi and Peruzzi Banking houses), as well as numerous studies on Italy, Spain and Eastern Europe all point to the same conclusion.

(Oh and French monarchial authority could only be establish if Burgundy didn't control France) which is something the Swiss did free of charge...)

I wouldn't exactly say Burgundy ever controlled France. You might want to check out Vaughan's studies on the Burgundian Dukes as well as Wood's study of the French apanage system.

(which is something the Swiss did free of charge...)

Well, actually, not exactly free of charge. Louis XI always financed Swiss wars against Burgundy. In fact, in 1474, of the eight Swiss cantons only Berne and Lucerne felt threatened by the growth of Burgundian power. The other six regarded Sigismund of Austria as their one, true enemy. Louis paid Sigismund to recognize the cantons' independence and in return cobbled together an anti-Burgundian coalition made up of the Swiss, the towns of the Upper Rhine, Lorraine, and Austria. It was this coalition, held together by French money and consisting largely of Swiss, which finally defeated Charles at Nancy on 5 January 1477.

(I could probably rattle of few more off the top of my head if I had enough books that didn't relate only to England and France during the Hyw. Anglo centrism? Ooooh yeah.)

I've given you a few titles off the top of my head that don't relate only to England and France during the Hundred Years War. If you'd like additional ones,let me know.

Regards

posted 07-30-2003 04:37 PM            

My print is a copy of the picture you posted. It is nice to know the story that goes with it.