Re: Kalamazoo

On May 24, 6:35 pm, a...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 24, 2:44 pm, "Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



<a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0cde1432-aede-4dae-82d4-1f94b1302ed5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 22, 7:25 pm, cemanuel <ceman...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 22, 1:12 pm, a...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 21, 11:16 pm, cemanuel <ceman...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 21, 3:24 pm, ken...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

By the way the situation changed a lot from when the Merovignians
took
over to C. There was a change from infantry as the main force to
cavalry
a hundred years plus of Merovignian rule and the abandonment of
throwing
axes as a weapon.

Ken Young

Not really. Seems to be the same misconception as followed later
armies where the sources often minimize infantry to highlight the
nobility, who rode horses.

Martel's victory at Poitiers was completely due to his infantry.
Numerous later sources such as the Utrecht Psalter show infantry as
prominent.

Charles Martel (alledgedly) created effective Frankish cavalry.

It wasn't used at Poitiers.

He still was creator of the Frankish cavalry. Wiki on the campaigns of
732 - 737:
"Notable about these campaigns was Charles' incorporation, for the
first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx."

Yes - so? Of course the Wiki account of the Battle of Tours
specifically says, "Notably, the Frankish troops won the battle
without cavalry."

If we're going to use Wiki as a source. It references a Schoenfield
article in The Reader's Companion to Military History by Parker and
Cowley, ISBN: 978-0618127429 I haven't read that.


It was. (Alex's)

In fact, cavalry was so little used

Sorry, what was that 'c-word'? You insisted that it was not present. I
did not say that it was of any crucial value at this battle.

I have never said it wasn't present or anything of the kind. What I
SAID (or wrote) was: "It (cavalry) wasn't used at Poitiers."

I don't have a clue if it was there or not. I rather assume it was and
Martel chose to remain in his defensive position and not use it but I
don't really know since contemporary sources don't mention it. I
would, however, appreciate it if you wouldn't misstate my position.

Actually Bachrach agrees with you - he thinks Martel kept a small
group of mounted forces at the rear of his phalanx in case he'd need
them depending on how the battle went. NOTE: I should probably re-read
Bachrach but won't soon - in looking at it for the 1st time in 9
years, he editorializes more than I like, at least in the section on
Poitiers. Maybe when I get to reading McKitterick.


From Razin's "Military History" (unfortunately, I can't find the
source he is referencing to, the reference number on the web-posted
version points to something totally irrelevant):
"÷ÔÏÒÏÊ ÜÔÁÐ -- ËÏÎÔÒÁÔÁËÁ ÒÙÃÁÒÓËÏÊ ËÏÎÎÉÃÙ ÆÒÁÎËÏ× É ÐÏÒÁÖÅÎÉÅ
ÁÒÁÂÏ×.

ðÏÓÌÅ ÔÏÇÏ ËÁË ÐÅÈÏÔÁ ÆÒÁÎËÏ× ÏÔÒÁÚÉÌÁ ÁÔÁËÉ ÁÒÁÂÓËÏÊ ËÏÎÎÉÃÙ, ëÁÒÌ
ÒÅÛÉÌ ×ÏÓÐÏÌØÚÏ×ÁÔØÓÑ ÕÓÐÅÛÎÙÍ ÉÓÈÏÄÏÍ ÐÅÒ×ÏÇÏ ÜÔÁÐÁ ÂÏÑ. <<æÒÁÎËÓËÉÅ
ÒÙÃÁÒÉ ÐÏÄ ÐÒÅÄ×ÏÄÉÔÅÌØÓÔ×ÏÍ üÄÁ, ÇÅÒÃÏÇÁ áË×ÉÔÁÎÓËÏÇÏ, ÐÒÏÒ×ÁÌÉÓØ
ÞÅÒÅÚ ÒÑÄÙ ÍÁ×ÒÏ× (ÁÒÁÂÏ×. -- å. ò.) É Ï×ÌÁÄÅÌÉ ÉÈ ÌÁÇÅÒÅÍ. îÏ ÔÁËÏÇÏ
ÒÏÄÁ ×ÏÊÓËÏ ÎÅ ÂÙÌÏ ÐÒÉÇÏÄÎÙÍ ÄÌÑ ÐÒÅÓÌÅÄÏ×ÁÎÉÑ; ÐÏÜÔÏÍÕ ÁÒÁÂÙ, ÐÏÄ
ÐÒÉËÒÙÔÉÅÍ Ó×ÏÅÊ ÎÅÕÔÏÍÉÍÏÊ ÉÒÒÅÇÕÌÑÒÎÏÊ ËÏÎÎÉÃÙ, ÏÔÓÔÕÐÉÌÉ
ÎÅ×ÒÅÄÉÍÙÍÉ × éÓÐÁÎÉÀ>>

2nd stage of a battle - counterattack of the Frankish cavalry and
defeat of the Arabs.

After the Frankish infantry repulsed attacks of the Arab cavalry,
Charles decided to develop success of teh 1st stage of a battle.
"Frankish knights under the leadership of Eudes, Duke of Aquitanne,
broke through the Moorish ranks and took hold of their camp. However,
this army was not well-suited for the pursuit, which allowed the arabs
under the cover of their irregular cavalry safely retreat to Spain".

Of course, his view could be wrong because there is no _direct_
(AFAIK) support of all of the above in the sources.

Something of the kind probably can be derived from the Arab chroniclehttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html:

"But many of the Moslems were fearful for the safety of the spoil
which they had stored in their tents, and a false cry arose in their
ranks that some of the enemy were plundering the camp; "

How would Frankish infantry get to this camp? For cavalry this would
be a reasonably simple attack bypassing the opponent's flank. For the
infantry, this would be a suicide. Providing, of course, all of the
above happened.

I've commented on this in another post. Martel sent some people into
the Arab camp to free slaves and prisoners taken in recent raids.
There's no evidence these people were mounted or made any kind of
organized attack - however the Arabs believed they were. That's why
it's described in the Chronicle as a FALSE rumor.

I want to note that this pops up all over in secondary sources. If
I've read this specific piece of information in one of the
contemporary sources, I've forgotten it.


Neither is it clear how could "Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, being now
reconciled with Prince Charles Martel, later slew as many of the
Saracens as he could find who had escaped from the battle." (Chronicle
of St. Denis) do all this slewing by pursuing cavalry with an
infantry.

The Chronicle of St. Denis dates from the late 13th century. I'm
certain the compiler based it on contemporary sources, at least
somewhat, however none of the contemporary sources mention this so it
appears that the compiler, writing over 500 years later, added some
information to represent 13th-14th century French opinion on cavalry.
I'd be careful about using later compilers such as this or the Monk of
St. Gall too much.


that Martel kept his force in the same
hill in the same position all night and they were ready to fight, in the
same spot, the next day

Which proves what exactly?

Are you saying that he used cavalry to stand still?


when they saw the Arab tents - but the Arabs had
withdrawn and left their tents, presumably so Martel wouldn't follow them.

What did you see when you were there? Did you take pictures?

For the future. I'm trying to keep conversation polite and free of
personal barbs but if you keep getting nasty I can do this at least as
well as you do.

I owe you an apology for this Alex - you're 100% right. That was
uncalled for. I'll do better in the future.

And I'm back to Google Groups until I can figure out how to make my
replies include an ">" in my news reader - it does for e-mail so I'm
not sure why it won't for news.

Curt Emanuel
cemanuel@xxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kalamazoo
    ... whether there definitely was cavalry on the Frankish side. ... The Battle of Poitiers, ... The Arab leader didn't want to fight him there and made some raids on other towns but Martel never moved and waited for him to finally attack. ... The fact that danger to the spoils they'd taken caused the Arabs to break off the battle adds a lot of credibility to the idea that this was really a big raid by the Arabs, ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Kalamazoo
    ... whether there definitely was cavalry on the Frankish side. ... The Battle of Poitiers, ... If the Franks had none, ... this was really a big raid by the Arabs, ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: RMA and world history
    ... Artillery Revolution from the 100 Years War. ... Infantry takes the dominant role on the battlefield over heavy cavalry and that the use of cannons and siege warfare made for an advance in the artillery of the day. ... My husband also argued that the Battle of Crecy was the end of the cavalry and that it was the use of longbowmen and archers that provided the crushing blow to the French cavalry. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Kalamazoo
    ... There was a change from infantry as the main force to ... He still was creator of the Frankish cavalry. ... defeat of the Arabs. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • The Longest War: Tam Ky (March 1968)
    ... The cavalry role was expanded, ... Squadron, 1st Cavalry, 23d Infantry Division, at Tam Ky. ... included three armored cavalry troops plus an air cavalry troop, ...
    (soc.history.war.misc)