So like Scotland after being beaten by Edward I time and time and time again they still managed to raise armies of thousands which understand how but how do they supplied that army with weapons in an kingdom that was under the control of an foreign power. Basically how to rebellious conquered kingdoms in medieval times supplied their army with weapons.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Usually they just took what they needed. Food would be commandeered and unless there was a major defeat weapons were typically still hanging around or personal possessions anyway. They did sometimes get maintained by somewhat crudely constructed pop up furnaces though.
But what happens when you lose most of your army most time you lose like the scots. How did they managed to keep supplying themselves with weapons? Also on an connected thing how did peasants got armed like in Imperial China rebellions or rebellion in Vietnam.
Private ownership usually, plus equipping an army with stuff like spears and shields is fairly doable because nothing is particularly complex to make and you have a lot of manpower sitting around doing nothing most of the time. You don't need a huge amount of skilled labour to produce basic weapons.
Yeah I mean that is true. Seems to me in terms of arms it far easier to equip an medieval army then now. But I guess it was far harder to supply with food and water.
Water would just be taken from water sources, you'd move armies near water most the time, food would just be persuaded out of farmer's hands. Don't forget medieval armies were much smaller than they became later, the largest armies typically only consisted of around 8-10,000
Another thing been mercenaries, if you have cash you can quickly rise some substantial troops.
Promising land and titles was also common to those who can bring troops.
Promising land and titles was also common to those who can bring troops.
China at least at some periods did afaik have what amounts to weapon/supply depots, so if your rebellion includes the local guards, there you go, you've got a bunch of basic weaponry. Thing is though, for every moderately successful peasant revolt there there's probably a hundred that didn't amount to anything, so most of the time they presumably were badly equipped and badly organized and possibly badly outnumbered too.
Weapons weren't the most difficult thing to produce or procure, and many tools and farm implements could be used as such, which likely formed the principle armament of most peasant revolts in China and many other parts of the world. Shields were only slightly more difficult, as they're not something everyone already has, but easy enough to make. Armor was a different matter, as it generally required some skill to produce and fit to the wearer: more material than a weapon, more skill to create, and more time to produce. Organization was another big issue, since drilling and training even a modest sized formation pretty much indicates to everyone in the region that you're preparing to create your own army, and there's no shortage of information leaks when you've got several thousand participants. If you don't already have weapons and armor, there's a problem, because you can expect a visit rather shortly from a whole lot of the regional or national authorities and their well-armed assistants once they hear about it.
A fine example of weapons and armor being an issue is the ascendance of Rome. Veii was the local Etruscan power in the region, and Rome was the local Latin power, neither being strong enough to completely conquer the other without the assistance of their kin in the surrounding cities, yet not being supported when they were in danger of becoming too powerful within their own alliance. Veii (and the Etruscan League in general) suffered a massive defeat against the Greek states in the southern tip of Italy, losing virtually their entire armies when the fully laden transport fleet was sunk with few survivors. The manpower could be replaced, and weapons of varying quality could be gathered or made quickly enough, but replacing all of the chain mail and other armor was the work of at least a generation. Rome seized the opportunity, sieging Veii for several years until it fell.
The American Revolution was another example of the difficulty in supplying weapons. The colonists were unable to mount any serious revolt because skilled gunsmiths were heavily limited and regulated by British law. At some point, a couple of aspiring colonial entrepreneurs met in a coffee shop in Vienna and discussed the situation. Alexander Hamilton had just toured an innovative tackle block factory in England earlier on the trip, where each craftsman only needed to know one step of the operation, then passed the work on to the next person on the assembly line. Hamilton reasoned "We CAN make our own guns", WITHOUT the normally required number of skilled craftsmen, and a revolution was born. The moral being, supplying your idle thinkers with too much coffee can lead to political problems.
A fine example of weapons and armor being an issue is the ascendance of Rome. Veii was the local Etruscan power in the region, and Rome was the local Latin power, neither being strong enough to completely conquer the other without the assistance of their kin in the surrounding cities, yet not being supported when they were in danger of becoming too powerful within their own alliance. Veii (and the Etruscan League in general) suffered a massive defeat against the Greek states in the southern tip of Italy, losing virtually their entire armies when the fully laden transport fleet was sunk with few survivors. The manpower could be replaced, and weapons of varying quality could be gathered or made quickly enough, but replacing all of the chain mail and other armor was the work of at least a generation. Rome seized the opportunity, sieging Veii for several years until it fell.
The American Revolution was another example of the difficulty in supplying weapons. The colonists were unable to mount any serious revolt because skilled gunsmiths were heavily limited and regulated by British law. At some point, a couple of aspiring colonial entrepreneurs met in a coffee shop in Vienna and discussed the situation. Alexander Hamilton had just toured an innovative tackle block factory in England earlier on the trip, where each craftsman only needed to know one step of the operation, then passed the work on to the next person on the assembly line. Hamilton reasoned "We CAN make our own guns", WITHOUT the normally required number of skilled craftsmen, and a revolution was born. The moral being, supplying your idle thinkers with too much coffee can lead to political problems.
Many (most) Medieval peasantry, particularly on the frontiers, already had arms. The formation of local militia on the spot was something that was part and parcel of being a peasant. It is how bandits were fended off and how feudal lords raised armies. Generally speaking, people were responsible for their own armaments.
That said, there were weapon depots around - plenty of them. Better known as "castles". And castles are not particularly well-defended in times of peace. A peasant force that takes a castle early would be well supplied.
It's not like any medieval ruler has the power to confiscate all the weapons that are out there. Your basic campaign was essentially: muster your army, march it into enemy lands, pillage as you go, siege a few castles and maybe fight a land battle if both sides are feeling confident. Once the enemy surrenders, you go home and disband, because supporting an army in foreign lands is expensive (your men want to go home, and as a king you don't want to be away for too long either). So most of the weapons and equipment is stuff they already have; don't forget that 99% of your medieval wars of "national liberation" are essentially various local nobles pooling their existing forces/resources. The Scots at Bannockburn or what have you weren't some romantic peasants (most of whom didn't care who ruled over them), they were largely the armed and experienced retainers of the various Bruce-allied nobles.
Another issue to remember is that plenty of men would be defectors from the other side. Any invasion aiming for permanent conquest is going to rely on local collaborators, and some of these may be willing to switch sides again if the wind changes. Even Robert the Bruce had previously been an English-collaborator, actively aiding Edward I in his earlier conflicts with John Balliol. If you can't effectively disarm your opponents (and, as noted, you basically can't), you certainly can't disarm your own followers, even if you worry they may switch sides; indeed, doing so is likely to provoke them to switch sides in the first place.
Most "defeated" armies only lost 5-10% of their forces as actual casualties, give or take a fair amount depending on the situation. A sizable portion of the rest usually ran away, most of them WITH their equipment, or at least most of it if they threw down the heavier items slowing them down. The men that remained or were surrounded generally had to surrender their weapons, and sometimes their armor as well. Putting another army together means replacing the lost 5-50%, plus a bit more to improve the odds over the disastrous last attempt, not fabricating weapons and armor for the entire army.
The Impression might exist that an army requires a lot of metal for weapons and armor and that this might be difficult and/or time consuming to get. Afcourse one has to take in mind that likely a thousand functional speartips could be made for the same volume of metal that a set of plate armor would use. Such weapons could be good enough for defeating plate armor, just needs a sharp enough tip and a strong enough thrust.
Armor doesn't nessecarily require metal neither, depends who you face but also on the desired mobillety on the terrain you fight on. Plate is nice when the opposition has swords, mail is nice when they have plenty of bows. A shield doesn't nessecarily require metal. The more weight the more cumbersome it is to fight in difficult terrain where keeping formation is harder too, a horse can help but a lighter style horseman can pose issues too.
In a way all these considerations leave an option for a style of cheap light army that can perform well in more difficult terrain which the highlands are. Far larger use of relative cheap forms of armor and weapons that don't require metal but materials that are easy to find like leather, textiles and wood. And then hope that youre army can outmaneuver heavy infantry that gets too close.
Armor doesn't nessecarily require metal neither, depends who you face but also on the desired mobillety on the terrain you fight on. Plate is nice when the opposition has swords, mail is nice when they have plenty of bows. A shield doesn't nessecarily require metal. The more weight the more cumbersome it is to fight in difficult terrain where keeping formation is harder too, a horse can help but a lighter style horseman can pose issues too.
In a way all these considerations leave an option for a style of cheap light army that can perform well in more difficult terrain which the highlands are. Far larger use of relative cheap forms of armor and weapons that don't require metal but materials that are easy to find like leather, textiles and wood. And then hope that youre army can outmaneuver heavy infantry that gets too close.
It is physically impossible to penetrate a plate armor with such weapons. Sharpness does not matter much versus a plate.Infact its counterproductive. You need blunt weapons for that to transfer the force. Or an arbalest.
Most knights in plate died to daggers for that reason. The stilletto was famous for that.
Last edited:
What i mean is that the maximum pressure that can be applied depens on the force and the surface area it works on. Granted you don't want the point to bounce off the armor or break. But for the rest it doesn't nessecarily require all that much material at the point of inpact.
A Stilletto afcourse in still has few metal in it compared to the volume of metal that plate armor would need.
If you go versus a high medieval army with spears, wooden shields and makeshift armor you will lose. Crossbows will pierce your shields at any range, 2 handers will cut you and your spears appart and knights will slaughter you on horse or foot.
Your spears will be of not much use, your flinthead arrows wont go through armor or shield and your makeshift armor will propably more cumbersome than soldiers in plate armor.
If you dont have iron you better have cash and if you dont have both you pray to God. A 1250 army will tear a stone age army appart.
But alright lets assume you have little cash and little iron and time to prepare. In that case you should make them siege you in a fortification, would be your best chance. If you have to fight a field battle make pikes, as many as you can and hope they dont have to many archers.
also you don't need that much to equip an army if you're not worried about quality
a few layers of thick cloth or leather makes fairly decent armour and clubs and spears require few actual metal (or a goedendag which is mainly a club with a spike on top to emulate a spear), add a few guys with leather straps and leaden balls/literally rocks for slingers and voila you have an infantry base which you can use to hold a line to anker the enemy
a few layers of thick cloth or leather makes fairly decent armour and clubs and spears require few actual metal (or a goedendag which is mainly a club with a spike on top to emulate a spear), add a few guys with leather straps and leaden balls/literally rocks for slingers and voila you have an infantry base which you can use to hold a line to anker the enemy
Against a medieval army this would be like Zulus vs the Africa Corps.
Except not.
That armour and those weapons would and could work. I have no idea where you got stone age from, the difference is at best 150 years. Though it would be helpful if we narrowed down the timeframe. Are we talking pre-millenium, crusades, high medieval, or late-turning-renaissance?
What would break the rabble is their lack of organisation and discipline. A disciplined, but underequipped army can beat a better equipped army, and knights are not invulnerable tanks, and even if they were, they are few and far between.
Last edited:
This is the Flemmish "goedendag", and yeah it's a pretty effective weapon for a infantryman to defeat a knight withought needing any additional metal in regards to weapons or armor. It proved it's use in this regard as me and demanvanwezel know from Flemmish history. You can pretty easily penetrate armor with it and it serves well as a blunt club like weapon aswell. It kinda stands out imho as a very cost effecient weapon of the time.
Afcourse, to be able to defeat knights like that you need dicipline indeed and typically a good force multiplier trough use of difficult terrain or obstacles.
Thouh you did mentioned pikes, and to be fair i meant pikes to begin with aswell. It simply boils back to the original argument and the idea that you can functionaly equip an army with these at low cost and make good use of them if you choose youre terrain well, which in a sense you seem to agree too.
As to archers, hardly any army in medieval times had so many heavy infantry and no other lighter troops that archers wouldn't have been of any use.
Last edited: