If it was an army it would have been difficult to ambush. You would need an army to ambush an army, and the thing about armies is they're hard to hide. Most armies were aware of the movements of other armies in their vicinity. If it was a small group ambushing an army, they might get a few kills, but they could not have seriously damaged the army, and would themselves then probably be pursued and killed fairly easily.
Honestly in the case of a King, or a Count, he might have squires serving him who'd basically made a profession of it. Such men might be highly armored, with a lot of excellent equipment of their own. They might have even had other squires assisting them while they assisted the king!
It really depends. Some squires would have been totally unarmored, some completely armored. Some were adult men who also served as foot soldiers, some knights in training. Some squires did no fighting, others were very involved in the fighting. Generally, a squire would not have worn as much armor as his knight, and would have been hanging back, not participating in the battle, because he had to be available to attend his knight.
Medieval armies and later armies all had to deal with logistics. Men and beasts both had to eat. I appreciate the love for the mules here as they really deserve more love. Consider that everything had to be packed or carried. Mules are very tough and can carry up to 20% of their body weight.
Knights were the smallest part of a medieval army often comprising one-third or less of the soldiers. Most soldiers were infantry. The level of organisation required to assemble and sustain a medieval army was impressive. While the equipment carried was relatively simple, two factors are also important. First, everything had to be packed and Second, both men and beasts must eat.
All good points. Most medieval armies had tons of infantry. Don't forget mercenaries, too! Each knight would also have a retinue of servants, squires and soldiers - mostly peasants levied from the knight's province for the campaign.
Great video. As both a logistician in the military and a medieval military historian, it was great to hear someone mention the logistics of a medieval army. Baggage trains in the middle ages were the stuff of legend - endless, back-breaking, smelly legend! Because of this, medieval armies were at their most vulnerable while on the move - which makes the Crusader victories at Doryleaum (1097AD) and Arsuf (1191AD) even more epic as the Christian forces should have lost those.
I can only surmise that Roman Gaul produced enough crops to feed itself but no significant surplus for export. Another factor was that it was easier to ship grain by sea than transport it overland.
The western Roman Empire had fallen long before the Arab conquests of Egypt, so the effects of this conquest would not really been felt in the city of Rome. In fact before the fall the Western Roman empire north Africa (west of Egypt) served as the breadbasket that supplied Rome.
Excellent video Steven! I've seen many of your videos and still have many to study, but this one is definitely top 5. If I may ask a question I have: You said that an Emir of Grenada sent 1500 mules to a siege and I tried to imagine how the logistics of this would look like. Were the oxen his, or did he maybe "rent" them from the local peasants? What would happen if mules were lost/killed? Oh wait, I said "a question" right? :P
How different would the squires or knights-in-training look from the knights? Would there be a clear way of telling them apart or would they both look like mounted men in armour?
Actually Massilia (Marseilles) wasn't much closer than Carthage, and the Romans took Carthage before they held much of Gaul, if any. North Africa (what's now Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya) was their other chief source of grain.
Think about how much more food you can fit on a ship than a cart. Also, the Nile flooded every year depositing new sentiments in the soil (Thomas f madden a history of the crusades) Also where I got the term "breadbasket of the world"
Not crusade-related, but would it be safe to assume that european medieval battles were in much smaller scale so logistics werent that needed? Im talking feuds between barons and such, not kingdoms
It is my understanding that in WWII the U.S. sent forces into Burma w/ mules. It was still the only way to get around in the mountainous jungle. Mentioning Burma, another outstanding example of how the Western powers betrayed another group of their Christian brothers into the hands of their enemies. I get sick of how people about the Crusades as though it were a matter of Western imperialistic Christian imposing themselves on others when it ended in an abandonment of Christians by the West.
Since Egypt was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire during the initial Muslim conquest, and Rome was a very large port city, what effects would have the loss of Egypt have caused in Rome, if any. (Sorry about wording the question like an open ended GED exam question but I would prefer not to delude your research and opinion with my own.)
Logistics and mules just aren't exciting in a movie. ;-) Here's little advertised secret about mules....they have a much smoother walk than horses. I'm a horse guy but learned this from a mule rider who would ride hundreds of miles a summer. Mules are really no more stubborn than horses and especially donkeys. I'd take a mule over a donkey any day.
I stated "fall of the Western roman empire" i'm fully aware that the rest of the empire fell at a later date. I also never said that Rome did not receive shipments from Egypt, just that the bulk of their agricultural imports came from north africa (think modern day algeria, morocco, and tunisia), as such the fall of Egypt to the arabs would not have had a great effect.
I'm currently writing a story, and your information is top-notch. You've gained a sub!
If it was an army it would have been difficult to ambush. You would need an army to ambush an army, and the thing about armies is they're hard to hide. Most armies were aware of the movements of other armies in their vicinity. If it was a small group ambushing an army, they might get a few kills, but they could not have seriously damaged the army, and would themselves then probably be pursued and killed fairly easily.
Honestly in the case of a King, or a Count, he might have squires serving him who'd basically made a profession of it. Such men might be highly armored, with a lot of excellent equipment of their own. They might have even had other squires assisting them while they assisted the king!
It really depends. Some squires would have been totally unarmored, some completely armored. Some were adult men who also served as foot soldiers, some knights in training. Some squires did no fighting, others were very involved in the fighting. Generally, a squire would not have worn as much armor as his knight, and would have been hanging back, not participating in the battle, because he had to be available to attend his knight.
Medieval armies and later armies all had to deal with logistics. Men and beasts both had to eat. I appreciate the love for the mules here as they really deserve more love. Consider that everything had to be packed or carried. Mules are very tough and can carry up to 20% of their body weight.
It must have been difficult to keep the supply people and animals alive in an ambush. They would be considered soft targets and very important
When Caesar invaded Gaul, he had an entire legion assigned to guard the baggage.
Knights were the smallest part of a medieval army often comprising one-third or less of the soldiers. Most soldiers were infantry. The level of organisation required to assemble and sustain a medieval army was impressive. While the equipment carried was relatively simple, two factors are also important. First, everything had to be packed and Second, both men and beasts must eat.
All good points. Most medieval armies had tons of infantry. Don't forget mercenaries, too! Each knight would also have a retinue of servants, squires and soldiers - mostly peasants levied from the knight's province for the campaign.
Great video. As both a logistician in the military and a medieval military historian, it was great to hear someone mention the logistics of a medieval army. Baggage trains in the middle ages were the stuff of legend - endless, back-breaking, smelly legend! Because of this, medieval armies were at their most vulnerable while on the move - which makes the Crusader victories at Doryleaum (1097AD) and Arsuf (1191AD) even more epic as the Christian forces should have lost those.
In Granada, which still has steep, narrow streets, people still use donkeys, both to ride and to move goods.
You should look into the Hussite Armies. They made use of armoured wagons as part of their battle tactics.
I can only surmise that Roman Gaul produced enough crops to feed itself but no significant surplus for export. Another factor was that it was easier to ship grain by sea than transport it overland.
Very informative, thank you!
The western Roman Empire had fallen long before the Arab conquests of Egypt, so the effects of this conquest would not really been felt in the city of Rome. In fact before the fall the Western Roman empire north Africa (west of Egypt) served as the breadbasket that supplied Rome.
From Spain, we have the example of Sancho Panda riding a mule into combat...
Its amazing when you see the amount of support personnel for every combat soldier. I forget what it ussually is now, like 6 to 1 or something.
Excellent video Steven! I've seen many of your videos and still have many to study, but this one is definitely top 5. If I may ask a question I have: You said that an Emir of Grenada sent 1500 mules to a siege and I tried to imagine how the logistics of this would look like. Were the oxen his, or did he maybe "rent" them from the local peasants? What would happen if mules were lost/killed? Oh wait, I said "a question" right? :P
Probably would have smelled similar to a modern rock concert or some other large gathering!
How different would the squires or knights-in-training look from the knights? Would there be a clear way of telling them apart or would they both look like mounted men in armour?
Actually Massilia (Marseilles) wasn't much closer than Carthage, and the Romans took Carthage before they held much of Gaul, if any. North Africa (what's now Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya) was their other chief source of grain.
Think about how much more food you can fit on a ship than a cart. Also, the Nile flooded every year depositing new sentiments in the soil (Thomas f madden a history of the crusades)
Also where I got the term "breadbasket of the world"
Not crusade-related, but would it be safe to assume that european medieval battles were in much smaller scale so logistics werent that needed?
Im talking feuds between barons and such, not kingdoms
It is my understanding that in WWII the U.S. sent forces into Burma w/ mules. It was still the only way to get around in the mountainous jungle. Mentioning Burma, another outstanding example of how the Western powers betrayed another group of their Christian brothers into the hands of their enemies.
I get sick of how people about the Crusades as though it were a matter of Western imperialistic Christian imposing themselves on others when it ended in an abandonment of Christians by the West.
Since Egypt was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire during the initial Muslim conquest, and Rome was a very large port city, what effects would have the loss of Egypt have caused in Rome, if any.
(Sorry about wording the question like an open ended GED exam question but I would prefer not to delude your research and opinion with my own.)
Incredible animals. No wonder Our Lord chose to ride one.
Why wouldn't Medieval Rome have gotten more food from, say, France?
Logistics and mules just aren't exciting in a movie. ;-) Here's little advertised secret about mules....they have a much smoother walk than horses. I'm a horse guy but learned this from a mule rider who would ride hundreds of miles a summer. Mules are really no more stubborn than horses and especially donkeys. I'd take a mule over a donkey any day.
Squires and pages.
I stated "fall of the Western roman empire" i'm fully aware that the rest of the empire fell at a later date.
I also never said that Rome did not receive shipments from Egypt, just that the bulk of their agricultural imports came from north africa (think modern day algeria, morocco, and tunisia), as such the fall of Egypt to the arabs would not have had a great effect.
Well then, France is closer to Rome then Africa. The Romans began conquering the Gauls b/4 the Africans.