Ortaçağ'da savaş

Ortaçağ`da savaş genellikle Ortaçağ Avrupası`nda kullanılan savaş tarzını anlatmak için kullanılır.

Ortaçağ'da savaş

Ortaçağ`da savaş genellikle Ortaçağ Avrupası`nda kullanılan savaş tarzını anlatmak için kullanılır.

Ortaçağ Avrupası`ndaki teknolojik, kültürel, ve sosyal gelişme askeri taktikleri, süvari ve topçuluğun görevlerini değiştirerek savaş tarzının çok önemli derecede bir dönüşüme uğramasına neden olmuştur. Dünya`nın diğer bölgelerinde benzer seyirler görülmüştür. Beşinci yüzyılda yoğun piyade kuvvetinden oluşan Çin orduları, kuzeydeki Türkler ve diğer göçebe halkları örnek alarak süvari ağırlıklı kuvvetlere dönüşmüştür. Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika`da Avrupa`ya benzer hatta bazen daha üstün teknolojiler kullanılmıştır. Japonya`da ortaçağ savaş tarzı 19. yy.a kadar sürmüştür. Afrika`da da "Sahil" boyunca (Sahra çölünün güneyi, Senegal Irmağı havzası ile Kongo`nun kuzey bölümünü kapsayan bölge) ve Sennar Krallığı ile Fulani İmparatorluğu gibi Sudan devletlerinde 19. yy. boyunca ortaçağ savaş taktikleri ve silahları kullanılmıştır.

Ortaçağda savaşın kökenleri

Belki de en önemli teknolojik değişiklik üzengi`nin bulunmasıdır. Çin`de ve Orta Doğu`da uzun zamandır kullanılan üzengi, 8 yy. da Avrupa`ya gelmiştir. At yetiştiriciliği, daha gelişmiş demir ve çelik işçiliği ile birlikte üzengi çok daha güçlü süvari birliklerinin gelişmesine olanak sağlamıştır. Romalılar gibi daha önceki imparatorluklar, atlı savaşçıları daha çok hafif silahlarla kuşatılmış izcilik ve destek faaliyetlerinde kullanmışlardır. Ancak üzenginin kullanılması, binicinin otururken silah taşıyabilmeye olanak vermesi sayesinde süvarileri savaş saflarının en önüne getirmiştir. Avrupa`da ağır zıhla donatılmış şövalyeler merkezi kuvvet olurken, Moğolistan`da da hafif zırhlarla donatılmış atlı okçular önem kazanmıştır. Çin` de ise asıl kuvvetler bu iki sınıfın arasına düşmekteydi.

Bir çokları II. Adrianople Savaşı`nı Roma İmparatorluğu döneminin sonu ve Ortaçağ`ın başı olarak görmektedir. Bu savaş süvarinin geleneksel piyade üzerindeki üstünlüğünü göstermiş ve sonraki yüzyıllarda görülecek olan ortaçağ savaş tarzının karakterini belirlemiştir.

Savaşlar daha çok az sayıda ve çok pahalı olan atlı savaşçıların etrafında geçmekteydi. Bu hem Ortaçağ`ın sosyal düzeninin bir ürünü hem de bu sosyal düzenin devam etmesini sağlayan bir durumdur. Atlı bir savaşçı olmak hem büyük bir yetenek hem de büyük bir eğitim gerektirdiğinden, daha önceki dönemlerdeki yurttaşlardan oluşan orduların aksine savaşçılık tam zamanlı bir meslek haline gelmişti. Bu toplumun soylular adı verilen üst sınıf ile çoğunluğu oluşturan alt sınıf olarak ayrılmasını kolaylaştırmıştır. Feodal soylular, merkezi olmayan devletler içinde çok büyük güç kazanmışlardır. Bu nedenle Roma lejyonları gibi büyük , örgütlü ve iyi eğitilmiş orduların bulundurulması zorlaşmıştır. Birliklerin çoğunluğunu bu derebeylerinin vasalları olan köylüler ya da paralı askerler oluşturmaktaydı.

Ortaçağ savaş tarzının sonu teknolojik ve sosyal değişiklerle olmuştur. Merkezi hükümetlerin gücünün artması düzenli orduların , ya da Fransız ``Compagnies d`Ordonnance`` gibi yarı düzenli orduların ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır.

Strateji ve taktik

Kuvvetlerin konuşlandırılması

Ortaçağ Avrupa orduları tipik olarak üç bölümden oluşurdu: Öncü birlik, merkez ve artçı birlik. Öncü birlik genelde okçular ve diğer uzun mesafe atış yapabilen sapancılar ve nadiren de basit ve hafif katapultlardan oluşurdu. Merkezde piyade birlikleri ve zırhlı süvariler (şövalyeler) bulunurdu. Artçı birlik olarak ise daha çevik atlı birlikler gelirdi. Normal intikal sırası öncü birlik, merkez ve artçı birlikti. Savaş alanında sağa öncü, ortaya merkez sola da artçı birlik yerleşirdi. Ordular büyüdükçe ise savaşalanına hangi sırayla geldiyseler o sırayla dizilmeye başladılar.

Her bölüm ya saf halinde ya da blok halinde dizilirdi. Saf halinde dizilmenin avantajı tüm askerlerin hemen hemen aynı anda çarpışmaya katılabilmesiydi. Yine de bir süvari hücumu saf halindeki bir dizilişi kolayca dağıtabilirdi. Blok halindeki diziliş daha sağlam olmasına rağmen Agincourt Savaşı`nda Fransızların başına geldiği gibi arka sıralardaki askerlerin çarpışmaya katılmasını geciktirebilirdi. Blok halindeki düzenin avantajı ön sıradaki bir askerin yaralanması halinde arkada yedek olması idi. Bu düzeni özellikle iyi eğitilmiş birlikler de dağıtmak çok zordu.

Süvari duruma göre değişik şekillerde dizilebilirdi. Bir avuç atlı bile etkili olabilse de süvari mızrağı taşıyan ve sık düzende hareket eden süvariler çok büyük ve etkili bir kuvvet olabiliyordu. En yaygın düzen saf düzeniydi. Genel olarak üç ya da dört sıra derinliğinde bir saf halinde sıralanan süvariler bu şekilde hücuma geçiyorlardı. Çok iyi eğitilmiş piyade birlikleri bu tarz bir saldırıya karşı koyabildiklerinden bazı birlikler üçgen wedge formation, tam Türkçe karşılığını girmeli --> dizilişle saldırabiliyordu. Bu tarz dizilişte en ağır zırhlılar üçgenin uç noktasında olacak şekilde bulunuyordu. Bu düzen piyade birliği ile karşı karşıya gelince safları yararak arkadan gelen piyade hücumuyla geride kalan kuvvetlerin dağıtılması sağlanıyordu.

Süvariler savaş alanında başat güç haline geldikçe onlara karşı çıkmanın yollarını da aramak gerekli hale geldi. Çok yaygın bir yöntem olarak altı metreye varan kargıları kullanmaktı. Süvari hücuma kalktığında bu kargıları taşıyan askerler çok sıkı bir kare ya da küre düzenine geçerek piyade hatlarının içlerine girilmesini engelliyorlardı. Atlar mızraklardan oluşan bir duvara doğru koşarak dalmıyorlardı. Arkayı ve yanları koruyan geniş kargı bloklarına sahip bir ordu, bozguna uğramadan etkili pozisyonlara girebiliyordu.

İngilizler tarafından bulunan bir başka yöntemde yoğun ok atışıdır. İngilizlerin kullandığı büyük yaylar bir uzmanın elinde yıkıcı silahlara dönüşüyordu. İngilizler, binlerce okçu aynı anda atış yaptığında çok az ordunun hücuma kalkabildiğini keşfetmişlerdi. 100 Yıl savaşları sırasında birçok Fransız şövalye “ yağmur gibi yağan oklar karşısında günün geceye döndüğünü” anlatmıştı. Düşman saflarına karşı yapılan birkaç salvo ok atışından sonra geri kalan düşman kuvvetini halletmek için İngiliz piyadesi ve süvarisi savaşalanına giriyordu.

Kuvvetlerin kullanılması

Bazı ortaçağ orduları çok az eğitimliydi ve birliklerin birbiriyle bağı pek yoktu. Savaş öncesi çok sınırlı bir şekilde planlama yapılabiliyordu ve savaş alanında iletişim çok zordu. İletişimi sağlamak için genellikle müzik enstrümanları, sesli komutlar, kuryeler, ya da görsel işaretler (flamalar, bayraklar, sancaklar, vb.) kullanılıyordu. Savaşların çoğu büyük çaplı arbedelerle devam ediyordu.

Öncü birliklerin saldırmasının amacı genelde düşmanın savunma hattında delik açmaktı. Okçular, piyadenin kalkanları üzerinden düşmana ok fırlatır, düşmanda karşılık vermek için hazırlanırdı.

Sonunda merkez hareket eder ve at üzerindeki şövalyelerle birlikte piyade de hücuma kalkardı.

Büyük toplar ortaçağın sonlarına doğru savaş alanlarına girdi. Çok yavaş olan atış hızları (savaş boyunca yalnız bir kere atış yapılıyordu) ve belirsiz atışları nedeniyle etkili bir anti-personel silah olmaktan çok psikolojik güç arttırıcıydılar.

Daha sonraları daha küçük toplar kullanılarak atış hızı belirsiz bir seviyede artsa da nişan almak daha kolaylaştı. Topları kullananlar rahatça korunabiliyordu çünkü toplar daha hafifti ve daha hızlı hareket ettirilebiliyordu.

Ricat (geri çekilme)

Ortaçağda aceleyle yapılan bir geri çekilme düzenli olarak yapılan bir geri çekilmeden çok daha fazla kayıp verdirebiliyordu. Kaybeden taraf geri çekilmeye başladığında artçı birliklerin hızlı süvarileri piyade baskısı altında kaçan düşmana yetişebiliyordu. Bir çok ortaçağ savaşında kaçarken öldürülen asker sayısı savaşırken öldürülenden fazladır. Atlı şövalyeler savaş esansında kargılı askerler tarafından korunan okçuları ve piyadeleri çok kısa sürede ve kolaylıkla öldürebiliyorlardı.

Müstahkem mevkiler

Merkezi devletlerdeki çözülme ana geçim kaynağı olarak geniş çaplı yağmacılık yapan bir dizi grubun ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Bunların arasında en dikkate değer grup Vikinglerdi. Bu gruplar genellikle küçük olduklarından ve hızlı hareket etmek zorunda kaldıklarından bölgedeki zenginlikleri ve halkı korumak amacıyla müstahkem mevkiler yapmak faydalı olmaktaydı.

Ortaçağ boyunca bu müstahkem yerler de gelişmiştir. Bunlar arasında birçokları için Ortaçağ`ın simgesi haline gelmiş olan kale en önemlisiydi. Kaleler, yöredeki elit tabakasına korunaklı bir yerde olma olanağı sağlıyordu. Kale içinde iken yağmacıların baskınından korundukları gibi bölgeden yağmacıları çıkarmak için atlı savaşçıları üzerlerine gönderebiliyorlardı. Daha sonraları kaleler, yöredeki diğer elitlerden korunmak için de kullanılmıştır.

Ortaçağ dönemi boyunca müstahkem yerlerin birçok önemli yararı olmuştur. Ortaçağda süregelen yağmacılığa karşı korunak olmuşturlar. Ağır süvari`nin açık alanda yapılan savaştaki üstünlüğü, müstahkem yerlere karşı bir anlam ifade etmiyordu. İlkel yollar, ya da yol olmaması kuşatma araçlarının taşınmasını zorlaştırıyor ve zaman kaybettiriyordu. Merkezi askeri örgütlenmenin genel olarak eksik olması da geniş çaplı ve uzun süren kuşatmaların yapılmasını güçleştiriyordu. Müstahkem yerler, elitlerin topraklarından çıkarılamamasını sağlamanın mükemmel bir yoluydu.

Ortaçağ kuşatma sanatı

Ortaçağ döneminde ordular kuşatma yaparken bir dizi kuşatma araçları kullanmışlardır: merdiven; koç başı; kuşatma kulesi ve çeşitli mancınıklar (mangonel, onager, balista, ve trebuchet) gibi. Kuşatma teknikleri arasında lağımcılık da bulunur.

<!--

Kuşatmalardaki gelişmeler karşısında savunmaya yönelik bir dizi karşı önlem de geliştirilmiştir. Özellikle Ortaçağ müstahkem yerleri giderek daha da zorlu hale gelmiştir. Haçlılar zamanında eşmerkezli kale mimarisinin ortaya çıkması, ve saldıranlar için daha tehlikeli hale gelecek şekilde yapılarda daha çok In particular, medieval fortifications became progressively stronger - for example, the advent of the concentric castle from the period of the Crusades - and more dangerous to attackers - witness the increasing use of machicolations and murder-holes, as well the preparation of boiling oil, molten lead or hot sand. Arrow slits, concealed doors for sallies, and deep water wells were also integral to resisting siege at this time. Designers of castles paid particular attention to defending entrances, protecting gates with drawbridges, portcullises and barbicans. Moats and other water defenses, whether natural or augmented, were also vital to defenders.

In the European Middle Ages, virtually all large cities had city walls - Dubrovnik in Dalmatia is an impressive and well-preserved example - and more important cities had citadels, forts or castles. Great effort was expended to ensure a good water supply inside the city in case of siege. In some cases, long tunnels were constructed to carry water into the city. Complex systems of underground tunnels were used for storage and communications in medieval cities like Tábor in Bohemia. Against these would be matched the mining skills of teams of trained sappers, who were sometimes employed by besieging armies.

Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics definitely favored the defender. With the invention of gunpowder, the traditional methods of defense became less and less effective against a determined siege.





seealso|Undermining -->

<!--

Organizasyon

Şövalyeler

A medieval knight was a mounted and armored soldier, often connected with nobility or royalty, although (especially in north-eastern Europe) knights could also come from the lower classes, and could even be unfree persons. The cost of their armor, horses, and weapons was great; this, among other things, helped gradually transform the knight, at least in western Europe, into a distinct social class separate from other warriors. Knights fought extensively in the crusades (see Knights Templar, the Hospitallers, etc.).

Ağır süvari

Ağır zırhlı süvari, kılıçlar veya mızraklar ile Orta Çağda Savaşır. They were often used for charging enemy formations.

right|thumb|Costumes of Roman and German Soldiers From Miniatures on different Manuscripts, from the Sixth to the Twelfth Centuries.

Piyade



The role of infantry has been ignored in the past by writers who focused on the role of knights and heavy cavalry. That became essential only in the later Middle Ages. Until more professional infantry formations were created (such as the Swiss pikemen), they were little more than accoutrements to armored mounted forces. Most armies contained significant numbers of spearmen, archers and other unmounted soldiers. In sieges, perhaps the most common element of medieval warfare, infantry units served as garrison troops and bowmen, among other positions.

Askere alma

In the early Middle Ages it was the obligation of every noble to respond to the call to battle with his own equipment and archer, and infantry. This decentralized system was necessary due to the social order of the time, but led to motley forces with variable training, equipment and abilities.

As central governments grew in power, a return to the citizen armies of the classical period also began, as central levies of the peasantry began to be the central recruiting tool. England was one of the most centralized states in the Middle Ages, and the armies that fought the Hundred Years` War were mostly paid professionals. In theory, every Englishman had an obligation to serve for forty days. Forty days was not long enough for a campaign, especially one on the continent. Thus the scutage was introduced, whereby most Englishmen paid to escape their service and this money was used to create a permanent army.

As the Middle Ages progressed, the wealthier parts of Europe, especially Italy, began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers as long as their morale held out, but they would often break and flee as soon as they determined themselves to be losing. This made them considerably less reliable than a standing army. Mercenary-on-mercenary warfare also led to relatively bloodless campaigns which relied as much on maneuver as on battles.

The knights were drawn to battle by feudal and social obligation, and also by the prospect of profit and advancement. Those who performed well were likely to increase their landholdings and advance in the social hierarchy. The prospect of significant income from pillage and ransoming prisoners was also important. For the mounted knight Medieval Warfare was a relatively low risk affair. Nobles avoided killing each other for several reasons-for one thing, many were related to each other, had fought along side one another, and they were all (more or less) members of the same elite culture; for another, a noble`s ransom could be very high, and indeed some made a living by capturing and ransoming nobles in battle. Even peasants, who did not share the bonds of kinship and culture, would often avoid killing a nobleman, valuing the high ransom that a live capture could bring, as well as the valuable horse, armor and equipment that came with him.

thumb|right|Varlet or Squire carrying a Halberd with a thick Blade; and Archer, in Fighting Dress, drawing the String of his Crossbow with a double-handled Winch.--From the Miniatures of the "Jouvencel," and the "Chroniques" of Froissart, Manuscripts of the Fifteenth Century . -->

Ekipmanlar

Kişisel ekipmanlar



Silahlar



<!--

Levazım ve lojistik

As Napoleon famously said, an army marches on its stomach, a weakness that has applied to all military campaigns in history. Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, logistics became a poorly understood science in European medieval armies. While strongholds such as castles were carefully provisioned, armies in the field were either incapable or unwilling to provision themselves. As a result, medieval armies resorted to the following logistical methods.

Yağma ve yiyecek arama

The usual method for solving medieval logistical problems was foraging or "living off the land". As medieval campaigns were often directed at well-populated settled areas, a traveling army would forcibly commandeer all available resources from the land they passed through, from food to raw materials to equipment. Living off the land is not very easy when there is no food ready to eat, so there was, in theory at least, a prescribed "campaign season" that aimed to conduct warfare at a predictable time, when there would be both food on the ground and relatively good weather. This season was usually from spring to autumn, as by early-spring all the crops would be planted, thus freeing the male population for warfare until they were needed for harvest time in late-autumn. As an example, in many European countries serfs and peasants were obliged to perform around 45 days of military service per year without pay, usually during this campaign season when they were not required for agriculture.

Plunder in itself was often the objective of a military campaign, to either pay mercenary forces, seize resources, reduce the fighting capacity of enemy forces, or as a calculated insult to the enemy ruler. Examples are the Viking attacks across Europe, or the highly destructive English chevauchees across northern France during the Hundred Years` War.

Tedarik temini

When an army did choose or were forced to carry their own supplies, a supply chain or logistical tail was established from friendly territory to the army. The supply chain depended on control of either roads (in Europe particularly old Roman roads), a navigable waterway such as a river or canal, or by sea.

By river or by sea was by far the preferred method to transport supplies, mass land transport of supplies for armies would not become practical until the invention of rail transport and the internal combustion engine. During his invasion of the Levant, Richard I of England was forced to supply his army as it was marching through a barren desert. By marching his army along the shore, Richard was regularly resupplied by ships travelling along the coast. Likewise, Roman campaigns in Central Europe often centered on controlling the Rhine and Danube rivers both as natural obstacles and as a means of transport.

On land, the equivalent was the baggage train and was frequently a trouble spot. Supply chains forced armies to travel more slowly and were relatively unprotected. Attacks on an enemy`s baggage-as for instance the French attack on the English train at Agincourt, highlighted in the play Henry V-could cripple their ability to continue a campaign. Because of the unprotected nature of the train, such an attack was considered unsporting. Nonetheless, in most cases the baggage train of a defeated enemy was eagerly plundered by the victorious army.

Kıtlık ve hastalıklar

A failure in logistics often resulted in famine and disease for a medieval army, with corresponding deaths and loss of morale. A besieging force often starved while waiting for the same to happen to the besieged, resulting in the dissolution of the army and the lifting of the siege. Epidemics of diseases such as smallpox, cholera, typhoid, and dysentery often swept through medieval armies, especially when poorly supplied or sedentary. In a famous example, in 1347 the bubonic plague erupted in the besieging Mongol army outside the walls of Caffa, Crimea where the disease then spread throughout Europe as the Black Death.

For the inhabitants of a contested area, it was not uncommon for famine to follow protracted periods of warfare, for three reasons. Foraging armies ate any food stores they could find, reducing or depleting reserve stores. In addition, the overland routes taken by armies on the move could easily destroy a carefully planted field, preventing a crop the following season. Moreover, the death toll in war hit the farming labor pool particularly hard, making it even more difficult to recoup losses. -->

<!--

Deniz savaşları

In the Mediterranean, naval warfare in the medieval period resembled that of the ancient period: fleets of galleys rowed by slave would attempt to ram each other, or come alongside for marine to fight on deck. This mode of naval warfare continued even into the early modern period, as, for example, at the Battle of Lepanto. Famous admirals included Andrea Doria, Khair ed-Din, and Don John of Austria.

However, galleys were fragile and difficult to use in the cold and turbulent North Sea and northern Atlantic. Bulkier ships were developed which were primarily sail-driven. Ramming was impossible, but the main purpose of these warships remained the transportation of soldiers to fight on the decks of the opposing ship (as, for example, at the Battle of Sluys). Warships resembled floating fortresses, with towers in the bow and at the stern (respectively, the forecastle and aftcastle). The large superstructure made these warships quite unstable.

In the medieval period, it had proved difficult to mount cannons on board a warship, although some were placed in the fore- and aftcastles. Small hand-held anti-personnel cannons were used, but large cannons mounted on deck further compromised the stability of warships, and cannons at that time had a slow rate of fire and were inaccurate.

All this was about to change at the end of the medieval period. The gunport was invented at the beginning of the 16th century by a shipwright from Brest, France named Descharges. The insertion of opening in the side of a ship, with a hinged cover, allowed the creation of a gundeck below the main deck. The weight of cannon distributed to lower decks of the ship increased its stability immensely, effectively providing ballast, and a row of cannon on a lower deck produced the broadside, where the weight of shot overcame the inherent inaccuracy of firing cannons from a ship at sea. An example is the Mary Rose, the flagship of King Henry VIII`s fleet, which had around thirty cannon per side, all of which were capable of firing shot nine pounds or more.

The Spanish took this English concept and produced the galleon. However, the Spanish continued to consider warships as floating fortresses, whereas the English began to emphasize long distance gunnery and seamanship. The difference between the English approach and the Spanish approach was typified by the crippling of the Spanish Armada. -->

<!--

Denge düzeliyor: piyadenin süvariye karşı yükselişi

In the Medieval period, the mounted warrior held sway for an extended time. Typically heavily armored, well motivated and mounted on powerful, specially bred horses, the mounted knight represented a formidable force, more than a match for reluctant peasant levies, or lightly armored freemen unlucky enough to be in their path. Only the noble classes could afford the expense of knightly warfare, and the supremacy of the mounted man dovetailed neatly with much of the hierarchal structure of Medieval times. The winds of change however were blowing. Tactically there were only two ways for infantry to beat cavalry in a direct battle: firepower and mass. Firepower could be provided by swarms of missiles. Mass could be provided by a tightly packed phalanx of men.

Both of course were old news on the field of combat. The Romans used missile troops but as far as core infantry, the legions learned to deal with charging cavalrymen by forming a hollow square, pilums facing outward. The ancient generals of Asia looked more to firepower, deploying regiments of archers to fend off mounted threats. Alexander the Great combined both methods in his clashes with swarming Asiatic horseman, screening the central infantry core with slingers, archers and javelin men, before unleashing his cavalry to see off attackers. And thus it was that the infantry forces of Europe, finally redressed the balance against cavalry. There are several examples but two outstanding ones will be discussed here: The Swiss Pikemen and the English Longbowman.

Kitlelerin ustaları- İsviçreli mızraklı askerler

The use of long pikes and densely packed foot troops was not uncommon in Medieval times. The Flemish footmen at the Battle of Courtrai for example, met and overcame the proud French knights circa 1302, and the redoubtable Scots held their own for a time against English invaders, but it was the Swiss that brought infantry and pike tactics to an extremely high standard, over an extended period- almost a century.

Morale and motivation. Rather than reluctant peasant levies dragooned into service by the local laird, the Swiss often fought as volunteer mercenaries for pay throughout Europe and were generally known as highly motivated, tough minded soldiers, with little respect for knightly trappings. In several historical accounts, the Swiss stood and fought to the last man, even when greatly outnumbered.

Mobility. Historical records indicate that the hard-marching Swiss pikemen also managed to keep pace with cavalry units at times, if only in the confined terrain of the Alpine regions. Such mobility is outstanding but not unknown among foot soldiers. Roman records of operations against the Germanic barbarians show enemy infantrymen trotting with cavalry, sometimes resting their hands on the horses for support. See Caesar`s Gallic Commentaries. Centuries later, the fast moving Zulu impis in Southern Africa made their mark, reputedly achieving an outstanding march rate of 50 miles per day. Using their mobility, the Swiss were frequently able to overcome contemporary mounted or infantry forces.

Weapons and equipment. The Swiss utilized more effective versions of pike weapons, including the use of cutting blades and hooks which were excellent for dealing with mounted assaults. Rather than simply meet a poking lance, the cavalryman facing the Swiss could expect to deal with slashing blows that could cleave his armor, or relentless hooks that dragged him from his mount. Pike weapons were considered "unchivalorous" by some of the knightly class, and could be mixed in combat, with spearlike thrusters in the front franks, and slashing halberd men deployed further back after the thrusters had delivered the initial shock treatment. The Swiss wore little armor, unlike the ancient phalanx warriors of old, dispensing with greaves or shield, and donning only a helmet and a relatively light reinforced corselet.

Maneuver and formations. In numerous battles prior to the rise of the Swiss, it was not uncommon for pikemen to group together and await a mounted attack. Such an approach is sensible in certain circumstances, particularly if the phalanx occupies a strong position secured by terrain features. The downside is that it allows the attacking force more initiative. The brave Scots pikemen who won several earlier victories, saw off the cavalry opponents at the battle of Falkirk, but were caught in a static position, meeting their demise, through, ironically, the second prong of rising infantry dominance- the longbow. The Swiss, though by no means the creators, improved on pike tactics by adding flexible formations and aggressive maneuver.

A typical pike force was divided into three sections or columns. The Swiss were flexible in their dispositions- each section could operate independently or combine with others for mutual support. They could form a hollow square for all round defence. They could advance in echelon or in a triangular "wedge" assault. They could maneuver to mount wing attacks- with one column pinning the foe centrally, while a second echelon struck the flanks. They could group in depth on a strong natural position like a hill. Even more disconcerting to their opponents, the Swiss attacked and maneuvered aggressively. They did not await the mounted men, but themselves took the initiative, forcing their opponents to respond to THEIR moves. It was a formula that brought them much battlefield success.

Effectiveness of the Swiss. The Swiss won a series of spectacular victories throughout Europe, helping to bring down the feudal order over the time, including victories at Mortgarten, Laupen, Sempach, and Granson. In some engagements the Swiss phalanx included crossbowmen, giving the formation a missile stand-off capability. Such was their effectiveness, that between 1450 and 1550 every leading prince in Europe either hired Swiss pikemen, or emulated their tactics and weapons (such as the German Landsknechte).

Atış ustaları- İngiliz Okçular

``Full article and technical details on the bow available at İngiliz büyükokları``.

The English longbowman brought a new effectiveness to European battlefields, not hitherto known widely for native archery. Also unusual was the type of bow used. Whereas Asian forces typically relied on the powerful multi-piece, multi-layered composite bow, the English relied on the single-piece longbow which delivered a stinging warhead of respectable range and punch, able to penetrate contemporary plate armor and chain mail.

Longbows and archers. In the British Isles, bows have been known from ancient times, but it was among the tribal Welsh that proficiency in use and construction became highly developed. Using their bows, the Welsh forces took a heavy toll on the English invaders of their lands. Adapted by the English, the longbow was nevertheless a difficult weapon to master, requiring long years of use and practice. Even bow construction was extended, sometimes taking as much as 4 years for seasoned staves to be prepared and shaped for final deployment. A skilled longbowman could shoot 12 arrows a minute, a rate of fire superior to competing weapons like the crossbow or early gunpowder weapons. The nearest competitor to the longbow was the much more expensive crossbow, used often by urban militias and mercenary forces. The crossbow lacked the range of the longbow, but packed a bolt of greater penetrating power, and did not require the extended years of training and use demanded by the longbow. A cheap "low class" weapon, considered "unchivalrous" by those unlucky enough to face it, the longbow outperformed the crossbow in the hands of skilled archers, and was to transform several battlefields in Europe.

The longbow on the battlefield. Longbowmen were used to deadly effect on the continent of Europe, as assorted kings and leaders clashed with their enemies on the battlefields of France. The most famous of these battles were Crecy and Agincourt. Against mounted enemies, as at Crecy, the bowmen dug a defensive position defended with staves, and unleashed clouds of arrows into the hapless ranks of knights. The result was utter defeat as the screaming shafts pierced armor, felled horses and shattered the cohesion of opposing ranks. Difficult to deploy in a thrusting mobile offensive, the longbow was best used in a defensive configuration. Against mounted opponents or other infantry the ranks of the bowmen were extended in thin lines and protected and screened by pits (as at Bannockburn), staves (as at Crecy) or trenches elsewhere. Sometimes the bowmen were deployed in a shallow "W", enabling them to trap and enfilade their foes.

Piyadenin yeniden elde edilen üstünlüğü

Taken together, the mass of the pike and the firepower of the bow put paid to the dominance of cavalry on the European scene, and restored the balance in favor of the once despised foot soldier. Gunpowder eventually was to provoke even more significant changes. Against these, the heavily armored knight made but an indifferent showing.

NOTLAR:

  • "Technology and War: From 2000 BC to Present", 1989, Martin Van Creveld


  • "The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the Rise of The West", 1988, Geoffery Parker
-->

Önemli Ortaçağ çarpışmaları



<!--

Ortaçağ savaşları

Önemli orta çağ savaşları, arranged chronologically by year begun. -->



Ortaçağ savaşçıları: Vikingler

The Vikings were the most feared force in Europe during their heyday. While seaborne raids are nothing new in history, the Vikings brought the practice to a high art, and unlike raiders elsewhere, were to eventually transform the face of Europe. During the Viking age few European powers could match them, mostly due to their unconventional fighting style. Europe was divided into small kingdoms which were too busy fighting against one another to focus on defending themselves against the Vikings.

Viking longships were easily maneuvered, could navigate deep seas or shallow waters, and could carry warriors and horses that could be quickly dispersed onto land due to the ability possessed by the longships to come straight up onto shore. The Viking style of warfare was fast and mobile, relying heavily on the element of surprise. Approach in stealth, strike with surprise, then disperse and retire swiftly. The tactics used were difficult to stop, for the Vikings, like guerrilla style raiders elsewhere, deployed at a time and place of their own choosing. The Vikings often used axes and shields, and are often depicted wielding them. Their berserkers, in the berserkergang, were mad forces on the battlefield that struck fear into their opponents.

Opponents of the Vikings were ill prepared to fight a force that struck at will, with no warning, then would disappear to attack other locations or retreat to their bases in what is now Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway. As time went on, Viking raids became more sophisticated, with coordinated strikes involving multiple forces, rather than small, individual style raids of 3 or 4 boats. In time also, the Vikings began to hold on to the areas they raided, consolidating footholds that were to change Europe forever.

Ironically, the end of the Viking age was hastened on by other Vikings- a typical turning point being the year 1066 when Harold Godwinson, grandson of a Danish viking, defeated Harald Hardrada, the King of Norway and was himself subsequently defeated by William the Conqueror - a Norman viking descendant. -->

<!--

Ortaçağ savaşçıları: Moğollar

The Mongols were one of the most feared forces ever to take the field of battle. Operating in massive cavalry sweeps consisting of light mobile cavalry and horse archers, together with smaller tactical units, extending over dozens of miles, the fierce horsemen combined a shock, mobility and firepower unmatched in land warfare until the advent of the gunpowder age. From about two centuries, beginning with the rise of Genghis Khan in the 1200s, the Mongol warriors defeated some of the world`s most powerful, well established and sophisticated empires, and claiming over one-twelfth of the world`s land surface at their height, seen by some as the largest contiguous empire in human history- stretching from Asia, to Central Europe to the Middle East.

Moğol ordusunun anatomisi

Weapons and equipment: the Mongols deployed three general weapons, bows, scimitars and lances. Of these the most important was the dreaded Mongol Bow. Like many Asiatic bows, the Mongol bow was a composite bow, made from glue, horn, sinew and wood or bamboo. There were two types, one for long range marksmanship, and the other for shorter range purposes. Lances and scimitars were used for close range work within cities, or against dispersed enemies in the field. The central weapon however was the bow, with a range of over 200 yards. Arrows were of different "calibers" for tactical purposes, ranging from warheads capable of penetrating heavy armor, to an assortment of longer range, more specialized heads like "fire" arrows.

Morale, motivation and mounts: The Mongols were exceedingly tough warriors, used to privation and hardship, and extremely dedicated. The Mongol was always seemingly identified with his horse- the equally tough, hardy steppe pony. Reared on the harsh steppes of their native land, from their youth they spent hours on their mounts. The ponies not only furnished the means of transport into battle, but were very important to the Mongol steppe economy-- providing dowries for marriage, milk, blood, meat, hair and skin for clothing and tents, and glue and sinews for bow and arrow making. On the march, the Mongol warrior carried a string of ponies, rotating them as remounts to keep up the momentum of the advance. In a tight spot the Mongol would bleed selected ponies, using their blood to assuage his hunger. This extremely lean way of operation contributed to the rapidity of Mongol maneuvers. Characteristically, the Mongol was practical about his mounts, and would discard or slaughter them as demanded by the situation without sentiment.

Army organization and leadership: Mongol warriors were tightly organized into units of ten, and from that basic building block, grouped into larger formations roughly corresponding to regiments and other units, finally culminating in the distinct field force of 10,000 horsemen, the famous Mongol touman. Several of these divisional equivalents were grouped or subdivided as the situation demanded. Coordination was provided by designated unit leaders, with signalling provided via horns, smokes, flags or other devices.

Logistics: The Mongol logistical system was distinguished by its mobility and practicality. Most columns or toumen were self-sufficient in the short run. The Mongol armies lived off the land heavily. Heavier equipment and bulk material was brought up by well organized supply trains.

Swarm/encirclement tactics and massed firepower in the field: Mongol tactics were marked by speed, surprise and massive mobility. They approached in widely separated columns, both to ease logistics as well as to gain maneuvering room. Once they had isolated their target, the toumans deployed in wide sweeps, converging on the enemy from several directions. Upon contact the Mongols played cat and mouse, standing-off while devastating opponents with massed arrow fire, or charging in close only to veer off while discharging yet another vicious rain of shafts. Opponents who took the bait and gave pursuit were quickly cut off and liquidated. The constant rain of arrows, the converging swarms of charges and probes, all carried out by the encircling Mongols were usually enough to "soften up" an enemy. Typically the opposing force broke and then the butchery began. As is well known, a force is most vulnerable in retreat, and the Mongols were ruthless.

Flexible tactics - ruses and ambushes: The Mongols were not rigid in their thinking, nor did they adhere to Medieval European notions of chivalry. They deployed a wide variety of large or small tactical subdivisions as the action demanded, and feigned retreat to set traps for pursuers, conducted ambushes, and constantly probed and raided their enemies.

Mongol siege warfare: Primarily a cavalry force, the Mongols made wide use of captured or hired siege engineers to overcome fortifications. A supply train hauled a variety of siege engines in the wake of the touman sweep, and these were deployed against cities, as well as making use of local lumber and resources for other siege equipment. The Mongols were unsentimental and used every trick in the book, from sapper tunnels to treachery. Once a city had fallen, it was subjected to wholesale massacre and pillaging. Those that surrendered were spared the worst, but still had to yield up its treasures, both material and human. The Mongol era is filled with caravans hauling booty to the Mongol core in the steppes.

Mongol terror: Mongol terror and atrocity seems to have left quite a mark, even by the standards of the 13th century. They employed a deliberate policy of terror. It was not unusual for them to round up the surviving civilian population of a city or area, and drive the victims forward against their own people. Contemporary accounts speak of mass mountains of human bones, or of vast areas burned to rubble, devoid of all life. Such atrocities were also put to use in psychological warfare allowing the Mongols to sometimes subdue opponents without fighting.

Moğollara karşı Avrupalılar: Çatışma

By 1241, having conquered large parts of Russia, the Mongols began the invasion of Europe with a massive three-pronged advance. The first invaded Poland, the second Transylvania and the Hungary, culminating in the crushing defeat of the Hungarians in the Battle of Mohi. The Mongols had begun invading Austria and probing Bohemia in the summer when the Great Khan died, and the Mongol princes returned home to elect a new Great Khan. -->

<!--

Ortaçağ savaşçıları: Türkler



Trade between China, the Middle East, and Europe along the Silk Road extended throughout the period of the Middle Ages. The Turkic peoples were exposed to military technology from the days of the Roman Empire onwards, as well as financial wealth as a result of their position midway on the route. An early Turkish group, the Seljuk, were known for their cavalry archers. These fierce nomads were often raiding empires, such as the Byzantine Empire, and they scored several victories using mobility and timing to defeat the heavy cataphracts of the Byzantines. One notable victory was at Manzikert, where a conflict among the generals of the Byzantines gave the Turks the perfect opportunity to strike. They hit the cataphracts with arrows, and outmaneuvered them, then rode down their less mobile infantry with light cavalry that used scimitars. When gunpowder was introduced, the Ottoman Turks hired the mercenaries that used the gunpowder weapons and asked them to teach their soldiers. Out of these Ottoman soldiers rose the Jannisaries, or Ottoman gunmen. Along with the use of cavalry and early grenades, the Ottomans mounted an offensive in the early Renaissance period and attacked Europe, taking Constantinople, notably with the help of their huge cannon that were bigger than their opponent`s, notably ``Basilica``, the giant that pounded the walls of Constantinople. Basilica was itself designed and cast for the Grand Turk by a Christian Hungarian named Urban; a sign that the religion-dominated Middle Ages were drawing to a close. -->

Kaynakça

  • Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.
  • Keegan, John. The face of battle : a study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. London : Barrie & Jenkins, 1988.
  • Keen, Maurice. Medieval Warfare: A History. Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • McNeill, William Hardy. The pursuit of power : technology, armed force, and society since A.D. 1000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
  • Nicholson, Helen. Medieval Warfare. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004,
  • Oman, Charles William Chadwick. A history of the art of war in the Middle Ages. London: Greenhill Books ; Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1998.
  • De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval Military History


Ortaçağ

Kaynaklar

Vikipedi

İlgili konuları ara

Yanıtlar