How did medieval city militias stack up compared to feudal noble retinues?

How did medieval city militias stack up compared to feudal noble retinues? Do we have any examples of the two going head-to-head against each other in battle?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    they pounded the shit out the mongols despite being outnumbered 10:1.
    >Many citizens also fled to the citadel. While the rest of the city was sacked, the citadel held, with the garrison commanded by the Aragonese knight Simon (also spelled "Simeone"), an ispán of Spanish origin. Batu ordered his engineers to batter down the walls of the citadel, hoping to get at the valuables inside, but the catapults failed to do sufficient damage, forcing him to attempt to storm the citadel. The Mongols were beaten back time after time, with Rogerius noting the effectiveness of the garrison's crossbowmen in inflicting enormous damage on the Mongol force (the exact term Rogerius used, "balistarii", was used in most contemporary sources to refer to crossbowmen; despite some confusion, he and other contemporary chroniclers usually referred to siege engines such as ballistas as "machina"). After heavy casualties, Batu accepted defeat and broke off the siege.[2]

    Its counted as a Mongol victory despite them getting humiliated by a bunch of literal women and children with crossbows.
    also
    >asiatic siege machines totally impotent against European wall BVLLs
    HHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAAA

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I always jej at the idea of Mongols pushing into Western Europe, and the gigacope that
      >they j-just didn't want it is all
      Especially after going out of their way to crush and torture tiny poorgay Slav kingdoms. I guess invincible, undefeatable Mongols just didn't like wealth and fame bros.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty much this, historian Rashid Al-Din wrote that the mongols were unaware of the Great Kahns death when they stsrted to withdraw from Hungary.

        The reality is that the Mongs hadnr encountered siege heacy warfare that predominated Europe. Others need to keep on mind that the Medeival Europeans were the undisputed fortification builders.

        Additionally, the smaller ability to raise large armies lead to the Knightly and Yoeman classes being heavily armored and this was beginning to spread to the commoner classes, in addition to pike warefare that was in its ifnamcy and gave rise to the famous armiesnof the early modern period.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The Mongols are a bad historical meme that simply needs to go away. They were militarily impressive, but nowhere near as invincible as the tales and shitty modern historians make them out to be.

          >Others need to keep on mind that the Medeival Europeans were the undisputed fortification builders.

          No they weren't. Medieval European fortresses were unremarkable; there was nothing about them that made them standout from the neighboring regions. The people who were at the apex of siege technology at the time were the Chinese.

          >Additionally, the smaller ability to raise large armies lead to the Knightly and Yoeman classes being heavily armored and this was beginning to spread to the commoner classes,

          That trend in Europe didn't take off until the early 14th century, long after the Mongols declined in power.

          >in addition to pike warefare that was in its ifnamcy and gave rise to the famous armiesnof the early modern period.

          By the time this happened, whatever was left of the Mongols in Eastern Europe had been reduced from a threat to a nuisance.

          >No they weren't. Medieval European fortresses were unremarkable; there was nothing about them that made them standout from the neighboring regions. The people who were at the apex of siege technology at the time were the Chinese.

          No, it was rhe Europeans, the fortifications the crusadera built were attributed to the Outremer States lasting dor as long as they did as they possed significant diffuculties for their Islamic neighbors

          >That trend in Europe didn't take off until the early 14th century, long after the Mongols declined in power.

          No it started in the high medival period, namely im western Europe namely the Flemish and Scots as a counter to the heavy medieval calvary. The issue was that it was still in its ifancy during the time of the Mongol invasions in eastern Europe.

          >That trend in Europe didn't take off until the early 14th century, long after the Mongols declined in power.

          No, there are accounts by Islamic warriors about the fiercom Franks being stuck like pincushions and surviving blows that ordinarilly would kill a man. Heavily armored doesnt entail full plate, its a relative term, and european knights of the medeival period were more heavily armored. The precursor to full plate, the coat of plates appeared on Europe during the late 12th century see snippet

          >The coat saw its introduction in Europe among the warring elite in the 1180s or 1220s and was well established by the 1250s.[1] It was in very common usage by the 1290s.[2]

          I generally agree with the last statement but with the additional comment that the Mongols still possed a threat, they frequently raided and wages campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th century, but they wete not as succesful and the Europeans wages cointer assaults ajd invasions themselves

          >No, it was rhe Europeans, the fortifications the crusadera built were attributed to the Outremer States lasting dor as long as they did as they possed significant diffuculties for their Islamic neighbors

          That's not the reason. The reason the Crusader State lasted as long as they did was because the various Islamic emirs were too busy fighting one another to unite against the Crusaders. It's not a coincidence that once Mamluk Egypt conquered these emirs that the Crusader strongholds began to fall one by one.

          >No it started in the high medival period, namely im western Europe namely the Flemish and Scots as a counter to the heavy medieval calvary.The issue was that it was still in its ifancy during the time of the Mongol invasions in eastern Europe.

          Check your timeline. You just repeated what I stated. The infantry revolution in Europe began in the early 14th century.

          >Heavily armored doesnt entail full plate, its a relative term, and european knights of the medeival period were more heavily armored.

          By that definition, anyone at the time who could afford mail and coat could be considered heavily armored.

          >they frequently raided and wages campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th century, but they wete not as succesful and the Europeans wages

          They did, but at that time period the Mongol Empire had fractured. The Golden Horde in Eastern Europe no longer had access Chinese engineers, and being largely illiterate steppe tribals they struggled with even the basics of siege warfare. At that time the Hungarians and Poles learned that the best way to deal with the Mongols is to hole up in forts and let the Mongols exhaust themselves

          Anyone remember Saladin's reaction upon seeing the Krak des Chevaliers?
          Sandhomies just werent used to such impressive fortifications

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The Mongols are a bad historical meme that simply needs to go away. They were militarily impressive, but nowhere near as invincible as the tales and shitty modern historians make them out to be.

        >Others need to keep on mind that the Medeival Europeans were the undisputed fortification builders.

        No they weren't. Medieval European fortresses were unremarkable; there was nothing about them that made them standout from the neighboring regions. The people who were at the apex of siege technology at the time were the Chinese.

        >Additionally, the smaller ability to raise large armies lead to the Knightly and Yoeman classes being heavily armored and this was beginning to spread to the commoner classes,

        That trend in Europe didn't take off until the early 14th century, long after the Mongols declined in power.

        >in addition to pike warefare that was in its ifnamcy and gave rise to the famous armiesnof the early modern period.

        By the time this happened, whatever was left of the Mongols in Eastern Europe had been reduced from a threat to a nuisance.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >No they weren't. Medieval European fortresses were unremarkable; there was nothing about them that made them standout from the neighboring regions. The people who were at the apex of siege technology at the time were the Chinese.

          No, it was rhe Europeans, the fortifications the crusadera built were attributed to the Outremer States lasting dor as long as they did as they possed significant diffuculties for their Islamic neighbors

          >That trend in Europe didn't take off until the early 14th century, long after the Mongols declined in power.

          No it started in the high medival period, namely im western Europe namely the Flemish and Scots as a counter to the heavy medieval calvary. The issue was that it was still in its ifancy during the time of the Mongol invasions in eastern Europe.

          >That trend in Europe didn't take off until the early 14th century, long after the Mongols declined in power.

          No, there are accounts by Islamic warriors about the fiercom Franks being stuck like pincushions and surviving blows that ordinarilly would kill a man. Heavily armored doesnt entail full plate, its a relative term, and european knights of the medeival period were more heavily armored. The precursor to full plate, the coat of plates appeared on Europe during the late 12th century see snippet

          >The coat saw its introduction in Europe among the warring elite in the 1180s or 1220s and was well established by the 1250s.[1] It was in very common usage by the 1290s.[2]

          I generally agree with the last statement but with the additional comment that the Mongols still possed a threat, they frequently raided and wages campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th century, but they wete not as succesful and the Europeans wages cointer assaults ajd invasions themselves

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            anon
            use spellcheck because your typing is atrocious

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it was rhe Europeans, the fortifications the crusadera built were attributed to the Outremer States lasting dor as long as they did as they possed significant diffuculties for their Islamic neighbors

            That's not the reason. The reason the Crusader State lasted as long as they did was because the various Islamic emirs were too busy fighting one another to unite against the Crusaders. It's not a coincidence that once Mamluk Egypt conquered these emirs that the Crusader strongholds began to fall one by one.

            >No it started in the high medival period, namely im western Europe namely the Flemish and Scots as a counter to the heavy medieval calvary.The issue was that it was still in its ifancy during the time of the Mongol invasions in eastern Europe.

            Check your timeline. You just repeated what I stated. The infantry revolution in Europe began in the early 14th century.

            >Heavily armored doesnt entail full plate, its a relative term, and european knights of the medeival period were more heavily armored.

            By that definition, anyone at the time who could afford mail and coat could be considered heavily armored.

            >they frequently raided and wages campaigns in the late 13th and early 14th century, but they wete not as succesful and the Europeans wages

            They did, but at that time period the Mongol Empire had fractured. The Golden Horde in Eastern Europe no longer had access Chinese engineers, and being largely illiterate steppe tribals they struggled with even the basics of siege warfare. At that time the Hungarians and Poles learned that the best way to deal with the Mongols is to hole up in forts and let the Mongols exhaust themselves

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >The people who were at the apex of siege technology at the time were the Chinese.
          that is wrong tho

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You're wrong

            You're a special kind of clueless, aren't you?

            I actually read history books, whereas you get your info from wikipedia and shitty historical research that have been dismissed decades ago.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          You're a special kind of clueless, aren't you?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Medieval European fortresses were unremarkable; there was nothing about them that made them standout from the neighboring regions
          There was the sheer number of them, and their location.

          China was full of fortified cities, but these were by definition less common and situated in more vulnerable, easily accessible locations. While castles had no such constraints. Every bumfrick baron had a fortification of some sort, and many of them were quite out of the way.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        At the time the middle east was a lot richer than western Europe.
        Most of Europe at the time was really not wealthy at all.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >How did medieval city militias stack up compared to feudal noble retinues? Do we have any examples of the two going head-to-head against each other in battle?

    It was a mixed bag. The city-states often had manpower and material superiority over their feudal counterparts, but lacked the military professionalism of feudal knights and men-at-arms. Sometimes the urban militias did well against knights, other times they got beaten. The Hussite Revolt is a good example of burghers using their material superiority to crush feudal knights

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Golden Spurs and Legnano are two examples of urban armies defeating a feudal King and Emperor.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >How did medieval city militias stack up compared to feudal noble retinues?
    A bit inferior in gear and training but more numbers
    >Do we have any examples of the two going head-to-head against each other in battle?
    Sure, the Battle of the Golden Spurs is a well know example of a town militia going head-to-head against the french knights and beating them up. morons out there like to portray this as peasant beating knights (obligatory goedendag name drop) but the truth is that town militia was almost as well equiped as the knights since the the towns from that regions were rich as frick from the textile industry and were very well capable of equiping the guys.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >A bit inferior in gear and training but more numbers
      The cities of Northern Italy and Low Counties had their citizens pay for their equipment, and they were significantly richer than the majority of the conscripted men in Feudal societies who had to do the same thing. They had a rather significant material advantage over Feudal states.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >and they were significantly richer than the majority of the conscripted men in Feudal societies who had to do the same thing
        I dont know, when OP says >feudal noble retinues i am thinking of somone who at least falls in the "one knightly fee" of the 1181 english assize of arms or maybe a sargent at the minimum not the shitty guy who only shows up with whatever bow he has and knife.
        >The cities of Northern Italy and Low Counties
        I doubt they would be a representative of the averrange town militia to make a rulling like that. Northen Italy alone had massive armor making industry going on by the 14th century, Milan was very well capable of putting every man in suit of full plate if it which to do so.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >I doubt they would be a representative of the averrange town militia to make a rulling like that.

          Central European cities were very warlike. Pope Pius II, when he was still Cardinal Piccolomini, visited Germany in 1444 noted that: “not only every noble, but even every burgher in the guilds has an armoury in his house so as to appear equipped at every alarm. The skill of the citizens in the use of weapons is extraordinary.”

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >conscripted men in Feudal societies who had to do the same thing
        Conscripted men were generally not used in combat roles by feudal societies, homosexual.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Conscripted men were generally not used in combat roles by feudal societies
          They were the majority of French, English and German armies. Even in highest concentrations of career soldiers like Henry of Lancaster's expedition to Aquitaine only 1/4th of the soldiers were careerists. The rest were levied from Arrays in Wales and around Lancaster's properties. These men took active participation in all the battles during his campaign and his chevauchée going North.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of the soldiers who served in these city guards would become mercenaries.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    better in defense than they were in offense, which is essential for guarding a city and their families

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously the city militias will be stronger within a fortification.
    If you want a statistical answer to this, which his will ignore anyway, most sieges require a 3/1 advantage to be on equal terms and a 10/1 to succeed reliably, along with more supplies because they are farther from their base.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *