12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
In depth study even though of difficult style, November 6, 2004
This review is from: War in the Middle Ages (Paperback)
I've read both the French and English editions of this book. The style is difficult, but the scholarship is excellent. The two previous comments do not give enough credit for the depth of the work. Yes, it is not an introduction. But the book definitely adds to the knowledge of those who have already studied the subject.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the great historians of the Middle Ages, April 30, 2007
This review is from: War in the Middle Ages (Paperback)
I read this book for a graduate course in medieval history.
Phillipe Contamine is a great historian of the Middle Ages. "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. Contamine 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. Contamine 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. Contamine 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.
The requirement on localities to provide longbow men with weapons was very demanding. Edward III made great strides to take on the fiscal responsibility of equipping his army. This actually provided him with two advantages--that of quality control of weaponry, and reducing manufacturing cost through economy of scale. One example of how enormous a task it was to prepare for war comes from the armory records at the Tower of London. In 1359, the clerk of the armory is ordered to put bowyers (longbow makers), and fletchers (arrow makers), to work for the king, under penalty of imprisonment if necessary, if they were non-cooperative. Between 1353 and 1360, the armory added to its stores, 15,300 bows, 4,000 bow staves, and 24,000 sheaves of arrows. Each sheave contained twenty-four arrows; thus, this order equates to 576,000 arrows in all. In March 1345, 15 Sheriffs were issued orders to supply the Tower armory with, "3,000 bows, 8,400 sheaves of arrows and 20,000 bowstrings." By looking at supply records leading up to the battle of Crecy, Contamine was able to surmise several important factors about the supply of arrows. Each longbow man had an allotment of 60 arrows for the battle. The average arrow weighs 4 oz., so to supply 7,500 longbow men it took nearly a half-million arrows weighing 55 tons. This supply was easily transportable in some 60 one-ton carts from the port to the army. These figures can cast little doubt on the fact that the king was constantly writing back to England throughout his campaign in France ordering more supply of arrows and bowstrings. These facts about arrow supply gives one a good picture of just one facet of the monumental logistical, organizational, and planning skills necessary to support Edward III's invasion force of about 15,000 men crossing in ships numbering some 700 to 1,000.
The longbow reigned supreme on the battlefield until the mid-sixteenth century. By this time, other technologies such as better-tempered armor, cannon, and musketry, overtook the effectiveness of the longbow. Contamine points to the dawn of the sixteenth century as the one in which gunpowder would change warfare in Europe. This time, the easy use of gunpowder would cause all warring nations to adopt it to their use. Cannons would now make it easier to break up impenetrable longbow defensive positions. In addition, cannons were ideal for siege warfare against fortified positions.
Recommended reading for those interested in medieval history, and military history.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Well Researched but Tedious and Dry, May 23, 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: War in the Middle Ages (Paperback)
This book contains a wealth of information about warfare and weapons in the Middle Ages, but it reads like it was written for an academic audience. Therefore, I believe that non-specialists (like myself) will find the material dry and filled with far too many details of little interest, even for those who are genuinely interested in learning more about the way that warfare was conducted in the Middle Ages.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
