Swords around the Throne (standing armies)

[Pontiac]

I know Philip Augustus created a small force of Knights and men-at-arms as a standing force. However, such practice was difficult to maintain for all except the greatest of lords. Has there been discussion about this? Will the attempt to keep a standing force be economically debilitating?

 

[Alexandru H.]

I doubt CK will have standing armies in the french case!

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Well, you could in theory maintain a standing army that is supplied and financed by your royal demenesme (sp?) (the provinces that you control directly), however maintaining an army over a long time should be financially hazardous, as it was historically.

It may be cheaper to hire a couple of mercenaries when the need arises, I hope.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Henry II of England (1154-1189) kept a permanent royal infantry "guard" that, with the usual household knights, formed the core of the royal host. He fed, clothed, armed, and trained them as spearmen to counter knights in the field, and as "engineers" that specialized in siege operations. Unlike feudal levies, they were disciplined, capable of marching/fighting in formation, and didnt go home after 40 days.

He also set up main arsenals in each of his Continental domains so they could be easily armed and supplied: Rouen (Normandy), Chinon (Anjou), Poitiers (Poitou), Nantes (Brittany), & Bordeaux (Aquitaine).

Of course they moved slower than cavalry and still needed knights to scout, screen, and forage. On the battlefield, like most spearmen of the day, their talents were defensive in nature, so the knights were still essential. But they certainly gave him a big advantage over his contemporaries.

I have no idea what happened to these troops after Richard's accession.

 

[SirGrotius]

Standing armies (besides a loyal guard) are worthless during the medieval era. Armies took months to move anywhere, and by that time the lords would call up their soldiers. This is on top of the fact, as stated earlier, that they were egregiously expensive, and well, rather dangerous.

 

[unmerged(1878)]

As Grotius astutely mentions, kings and other high-ranking lords were very sensitive to the fact that well-fed, well-armed and disciplined "personal armies" could rapidly become hazardous to their own health, as oft happened in the waning years of the Roman Empire.

Keep in mind that the greatest value of the feudal levy is that they cost the king practically nothing to keep, as they could basically be counted upon to forage for themselves and sleep on the grass or have their feudal lords provide camp logistics.

Unless one is EXTRAORDINARILY wealthy, keeping any sort of an exceptional standing force should be impossible, or at least politically or fiscally suicidal.

 

[HolisticGod]

All,

The East Roman Empire maintained several large standing armies at the very beginning of the time period, most notably the (we-don't-learn-from-our-mistakes) household troops... Imperial Guard, Varangian, etc.

But it wasn't long after Manzikert (I don't believe) that Constantinople too embraced the feudal army and began employ the Themes as the principle units in war. And in CK, because Demense is applied so broadly, it'll probably function like any other large Kingdom anyway (though I certainly hope not).

Other than that, I can't think of any Christian regime that, for any stretch of time during the period, utilized a standing, professional force above a levee. The Crusades themselves would probably be the nearest thing...

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Most established kingdoms would keep smaller standing household armies or very seldomly siege companies but no standing army of any size appears before the late 17th century at best. This includes both occidental and oriental societies: the warriors might well be there, but they are usually occupied with duties other than war when not called up.

Medieval armies didn't need to be slow, as Grotius claims: even a peripheral kingdom like Norway could in the late 13th century call up a sizeable force and dispatch it to Denmark on a trip that took only a few days, after a month of summons.
Staying on the spot, quite serious plans were made in the 1270s of establishing a standing force of 1200 "skutilsveinr", i.e. knights, but fizzled with the death of the king(Magnus Haakonson Lagabøte) - his son(possibly, but not likely, brain damaged by injuries) was dominated by noble factions and cut the proposal. These 1200 was supposed to be in addition to the royal hird (whose numbers varied, but usually were at around 500 hirdmen plus auxiliares).

EF

 

[Styrbiorn]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad


Medieval armies didn't need to be slow, as Grotius claims: even a peripheral kingdom like Norway could in the late 13th century call up a sizeable force and dispatch it to Denmark on a trip that took only a few days, after a month of summons.
EF

I assume this is the same as the Swedish ledung? Ie, the ship-borne force (roughly 300 ships) that the king had the right to freely summon each year for an offensive campaign or anytime in need of defence? It would be nice to see it implemented, even if it weren't exactly effective in the last tow centuries of the game (it did exist through the period though, the last time the Swedish version was summoned was in 1429, when they got beaten badly by the Hanseatic cogs). It would be quite an interesting feature, especially in the early game. Some of Swedish campaigns were essentially late Viking raids disguised as "crusades" (I'm thinking of Finland).

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Styrbiorn
I assume this is the same as the Swedish ledung?

Yep. Leidang in Norwegian.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

The forces assembled during the 1280a were composed of both quasi-feudal troops called up from the magnates(among them the bishops), the gathered royal guard or hird, the city musters of Oslo, Tunsberg and Båhus and the "conscript" forces (leidang(no)/ledung(swe)/leding(da). In addition to this the districts' peasants and smallholders were also, at least according to the laws, supposed to assemble smaller groups of men equipped and trained to the same standard as the king's regular guard. Most of the expeditions against Denmark in this period had fewer conscripts and more guardsmen/feudal troop, to enable a quicker muster. The norwegian high medieval armies were, as could be expected from a kingdom with our geography, were overwhelmingly ship-borne.

However, the medieval norwegian kingdom(and in all likelihood the swedish as well) did not use the word like we do today - something that often makes it look like the medieval scandinavian armies were composed of only conscripts, and the source of many strange arguments among less critical norwegian historians: the word "ledung/ledingr" is in the majority of sources used not only on the levies but also on the king's own men and the magnates' troops. Thus a reference to the leidang need not mean that it is the levies that are mentioned; and after the 12th century it doesn't even have to be a defensive army - the leidang fleets used by Haakon IV for his attack on Scotland was clearly an offensive affair from the start - and the sources do not indicate this being a problem for the participants(this has not stopped certain determinist historians from accusing him of abusing the principle of the leidang).

A nice summary of scandinavian warfare in this period can be found in Tor Einar Fagerlands "War and Diplomacy in Nordic medieval times", from 2002:

ISBN 82-91218-29-3 (h.)

And remember NOT to buy the new Osprey "Scandinavian Medieval Armies 1100-1300". A more patched-together chaos of outdated sources, strange conclusions and bad editing can scarcely exist.


EF

 

[Vandelay]

In Sweden the ledung also developed into something similar to scutage - rather than providing ships and men the different subdivisions within the ledung e.g. the skeppslag paid in money instead.

I think that it was mentioned in some early CK interview that scutage would be in the game (?). If so a prestigious and strong dynast should, by careful husbanding of the scutage funds, be able to field a small force directly loyal to himself.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[Endre Fodstad]

There is evidence for scutage in Norway as well - the king could request money or goods instead of troops, at least in the period I'm most familiar with (1250-1325).

 

[Styrbiorn]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad
There is evidence for scutage in Norway as well - the king could request money or goods instead of troops, at least in the period I'm most familiar with (1250-1325).

Same in Sweden. The years the ledung was not summoned, the king could and usually did demand taxes from the same people instead - but never both in the same year. The Swedish ledung did not have to be a defensive force either, the king had the right to summon it to make an offensive raid somewhere.