"French knights, where did they earn their superior status?" Topic

I've always been wondering why list authors keep on
giving a sup status to French knights (from feudal to
medieval French lists).

As a French, i'm kind of pleased to know that some
of our ancesters were not completely pants on the
battlefields, but, for instance most of the HYW battles
they fought were lost buy them until Joan d'Arc.

So i presume that their status came from earlier battles?
Or was it just their enthusiasm to fight rather than their
efficiency which is rated as superior? Or just a mythos
that doesn't want to die?

My take: French knights were the epitome of chivalric cavalry, both in terms of bravery and in terms of aristocratic indiscipline. The battles that were lost in the HYW were not due to lack of bravery but indiscipline and poor leadership. They persisted in making frontal attacks on pepared English positions.

In time the French army became more disciplined but needed Jeanne d'Arc to restore thier offensive spirit. Then they attacked when ordered to, rather than when they felt like it. Knights could be put in reserve instead of all demanding to be in the front line. After that they won most of the battles.

I can see little reason for them being considered better than other feudal knights. Just got a good press due to France being the centre of chivalric culture?

Because most military history in the Anglo-Saxon world derives from French and English sources which tend to ignore stuff that was going on farther away like Italy and Germany, and the English being naturally modest do not big up their own side.

and the English being naturally modest do not big up their own side.

Not to start a big affair on this, but I'd have to disagree on that. It's almost invariably the case that English-language sources demonstrate a fairly obvious pro-English bias in terms of recounting military prowess, from the middle ages all the way up to the modern world. There's nothing particularly unusual about a people being big on its own accomplishments, needless to say.

As to the original question, knights can be judged by how determined they were to press home their primary form of attack, the charge with the lance. French knights proved again and again that they were more determined than other nations in that regard. Period sources confirm that they were more highly regarded than other knights in mounted warfare.

That said, not all rules sets make them better. For instance, the new FoG lists make them about the same as other mounted men at arms.

English being modest?

Not in my experience.

Most English I have known seem to me to believe if a Brit cannot do it, then it canot be done.

Modest? English?

That's like saying we Americans are modest.

It's a contradiction in terms.

- Greg

:-)

I've been reading a bit on the crusades lately. The French during the first crusade sent the majority of troops to the Holy Land and, in combat did very well. Most of the battles seem to have been ended by an unstoppable charge of Norman knights. Throughout the Crusades French knights fought with incredible bravery, even in doomed battles. When they lost it was almost always due to foolish leadership and/or overwhelming enemy numbers.

I am quite sure it was not on the Ancient times…

Griefbringer

Thanks for the replies guy, and for
the reminder Griefbringer…

Looks like determination rather than victory counts
was one of the reasons for this classification then.

On the topic i'm planing to buy some books on Medieval
warfare (in Europe for a start), is there any you would
recommand? Not battle specific, but rather a good general
approach of the period. Maybe some kind of clssics on the
topic?

Well "French" Knights covers some ground over a few hundred years. I'm sure there were some variations on that theme.

The Norman Knights did indeed have more than a little success. Just take a look at what they did in Italy (took on the Byzantines and won); Conquered Sicily and Southern Italy with a handful of men -- not to mention that small affair at Hastings.

One thing you need to remember about these guys is that they were not exactly "soldiers" in the sense that we know them today. They were more akin to a bunch of thugs. They expected to take and hold what they wanted by force of arms. Brawling with armor and swords was a way of life. Extortion was always preferred to actual combat (probably something they learned from the Vikings).

Please note, I made no mention of military organization, leadership or training.

But hey, a nasty bunch of thugs could be quite effective from time to time.

mjc

Try this link on Medieval history.

It's free:

link

- Greg

Wow great link ! thanks Greg

@mjc, true, the Norman knights did win their fair share of
battles, as weird as it may sound, i just couldn't put them
into the "French Knights" category, too close to the Vikings
(that i like playing btw) maybe :)

>>>>and the English being naturally modest do not big up their own side.

>>Not to start a big affair on this, but I'd have to disagree on that. It's almost invariably the case that English-language sources demonstrate a fairly obvious pro-English bias in terms of recounting military prowess, from the middle ages all the way up to the modern world. There's nothing particularly unusual about a people being big on its own accomplishments, needless to say.

Yeah, that bit was kind of my little joke. However remember that "English" knights were essentially French from 1066 until they got fully naturalised, which happened by the reign of Edward III who started the 100 Years War in the mid 14th century. However they spent most of the intervening time fighting each other and the Welsh, Scots and Irish, plus some crusading.

It's true that the general area of France had a long tradition of mounted combat from Carolingian times. The Normans who were so successful in Italy were descended from Viking ancestors, for what that is worth.

Contamine is probably the best place to start for generic medieval history. He is recognised as a modern master. And his book, War in the Middle Ages is a great read. link

Springsnow, the only thing that French knights had in common, during the Middle Ages, is their language. The concept of France was just that a concept. And if language is the determining factor, then English knights were French knights because most of them spoke French. The concept of French knights is an anachronism. In fact, a lot of France was owned by the English crown. The real rise in French knights came during the reign of Charles VII. It was he who established the permanent standing of lance-armed heavy cavalry. Companies were assigned cities and charged with keeping the King's peace. This is why French police are stilled called gendarmes.

The superiority of the French knights came about because they were a standing force which trained continuously as a company (around 100). Other states were still raising knights for the period of the war and then disbanding them. The only cavalry able to reach their standard of training were the Italian condottieri.

As to books on the middle ages there are a number of great books written by French historians. A good place to start is

* Philippe Contamine, La Guerre au Moyen Age, Contamine is probably the leading French historian of warfare in the middle ages. His sources will give other historians to read.

* Claude Gaier, Armes et combats dans l'univers medieval. This give a more technological approach. Gaier has also done a lot of work investigating military developments in Lieges and the surrounding areas. Gaier is curator of the Liege Firearms Museum.

* George Duby, Le Dimanche de Bouvines, this is one of the best accounts of a medieval battle.

Now I'm assuming that you speak French being French. If not I'll be happy to give the English titles

Hope this helps

Rich

Hey Rich, the rest of us might like the English titles.

Phil

I think they started being superior in the 1980's when the WRG army list for them came out and they could be "A" class……..;)

On one hand and like several others have said this notion may be attributed to ethnocentric history. On the other I think that there are documents that discus tournaments and list which describe the French knights not only being formidable but winning quite a bit.

Charles the Bold consider Italian Men at Arms to be the best.

Of course French Knights were superior quality. They were the backbone of all their armed forces for the period in question. They were so good they fooled their generals into thinking they didn't need any of their other troops to be of comparable quality.

Their military defeats (Agincourt, Crecy, etc.) came when their opponents figured out how to use other troop types to counter the Knights -- to use a rock/paper/scissors analogy, the enemy brought paper to smother the Knights' rocks.

Their military victories in the same era (Joan of Arc etc) came when the French adopted their own combined arms strategies -- they also used paper and scissors as well as just rocks.

Note: It depends on the person writing the army lists but nothing prevents other countries from having superior Knights too.

If you class the 'French' as the Western Franks then there is certainly some evidence that they were considered superior by many of their neighbours from about the mid/late 11th century onwards. Prior to that the Eastern Franks seem to have had the better reputation.

How accurate this superiority is is, of course, debatable. Germans certainly seem to have had their share of successes in the Crusades as did the English. Both English and German knights seem to have become less inclined to employ the 'all out' charge which the French continued to use throughout the period and gradually began to rely increasingly on infantry and/or firepower.

One reason may be simple economics. For the French Knights were plentiful and cost the King zilch as France was still mainly a Feudal/agricultural economy. The enonomies of other parts of Europe grew steadily more complex and mixed industry and trade as alternative routes to wealth and power – money for mercenaries rather than 'home-grown' knights.

Just a thought or two.

Tony H

GRPitts

Brit != English

Especially in medieval times

In the 13th Century, the largely French knights of the Villehardouin principality of the Morea were quite respected, at least in the East. One is reminded of Anna Comnena's comment that a charging Frank could knock a hole in a wall.
Grelber

The issue is to compare French knights with knights of the rest of Europe. It's a comparison of equipment, quality of the horses and the training as an individual rider and the training as part of a group of horsemen.

If the French knights were judged by their contemporaries to be better than what others had to offer, maybe there's something about it.

But as the English showed. There was a very effective tactic to counter French mounted superiority.

I thought the main reason for classing French knights as superior was to encourage gamers to field them so all the English HYW gamers had something to slaughter?

One is reminded of Anna Comnena's comment that a charging Frank could knock a hole in a wall.

Except that she called any Westerner a "Frank", including Germans and English.

That said, the record of French knights does suggest that they were superior in fighting ability -- but not discipline -- in the High Medieval period. The battle of Nicopolis is another example of why they should be Superior, but lead by idiots.

wow nice to read all all guys.

Rich , thanks a lot for the bibliography, i do read French,
it happens to be my mother tongue even :) so i'll try to
find those books. I have "La societe chevaleresque"
( chivalric society?) from Duby and quite liked it, i think
i was/is aknwoledged as one of the leading medievists(sp)
in France.

I wished some manufacturers would offer knights with
the big horses actually used like this percheron:
picture

would be a nice sight on the table. I love those horses
i used to see some around some years ago working on the
fields but they seem to have now fanished :(

A friend of mine used to ride this kind of horses and told
me that it was like being in a sofa even when they were
galloping :)

lol, it should read HE was aknwoledged, embarassing lapsus…

ebob does a range which includes some vast warhorses; google ebob miniatures.

Simon

Springsnow, the only thing that French knights had in common, during the Middle Ages, is their language.

I wouldn't even be too sure about that, with all the regional dialects around – never mind other languages like Provencale or Breton.

Griefbringer

thanks Simon, i'll check ebob figs.

Actually, how about the fact that one wants an opponent to be feared, respected and awesome? That way, when one is badly armed, out numbered, etc., and manages to defeat them, it sounds really, really good?

Historical examples abound (smile) of one side in a conflict claiming the other side had ever advantage, but by skill, bravery and true grit, "we kicked their ass".

They were great, but we were even greater.

Dan

Better coconuts?

"and the English being naturally modest do not big up their own side."

When fighting the French, we generally don't need to! (but cf. the invincible British in many Nappy rules sets)

Some of the French reputation may come from their performance at Bouvines?

Well the way you beat the French is simply roll in Panzers and they foldup and surrender against any Nazi assault-LOL!

Oh sorry, thats the Belgians, just like there waffels.

Somme

In our rules, the Franks are the first to really do "Western Charge Bonus" and keep doing it for centuries. This is defined by Anna Comnena as the charge that would "make a hole through the walls of Babylon." Pure metaphor, of course, but making a comparison to other cavalry charges: which apparently could NOT make such a hole :)

Now, the Normans pick up on this also, much later. And the English (Anglo-Normans) never do. The Italians never do. The Germans never do: these, et al. do "full charge", but not "Western charge bonus." We call it that rather than "French (Frank) charge bonus" because the French aren't the only ones who do it. Basically, it is charging with the intent to cut your wat through or over the enemy and out the other side. This mentality can be demonstrated as late as Nicopolis, where the French even keep charging after they dismount and root up the stakes and keep going until too exhausted to move (at which point the Spahis rode up and captured them all). And in the 15th century the French have "Fanatic B" men-at-arms, but are no longer doing the all-out charge of an earlier time; nobody does it by then….

1066.us

Hi

Reading quickly, I notice that histories written of english battles by englishman seem to have a format of: "They were invincible but we english using pluck and a trick or two showed them the door".

In the Battle of britain histories, for instance, the brits always emphasize how their "few" were outnumbered. This consists of counting all the germans, bombers(targets), 110s(targets), seaplanes(targets) and fighters versus ONLY the british "fighters"(not including the glads and blenheims).

So, it might be that as english readers we see french knights as "the best" to enhanse the reputation of the british winners! Note that in the HYW, the brits won a few battles this way, but lost the war.

R

I always thought that the French victory at Bouvine in 1202? made the repute of French knights.

So the RAF weren't outnumbered during the Battle of Britain after all…just shows how good the RAF spin-doctors were!

There's only two things I hate, people intolerant of other peoples culture's……….and the dutch!

NIGEL POWERS…..

the BoB is a great example of the beliefs of the time being continued long after they have been shown to be untrue. It's recent enough so there is still a lot of emotion armound, and eyewitness testimony, filmed records, etc. But far enough in the past so that all the important data has been released and researched.

the Brits weren't outnumbered in fighters – at one point towards the end of hte battle the LW only had about 280 serviceable Me-109's – the RAF never had LESS than 700 serviceable Hurri's & Spitfires.

British productino of hurri's and Spitfires (450/mth) was almost double German production of 109's and 110's (230/mth)

The RAF worried when it started getting down to 1.5 pilots per a/c (an artificial problem what was actually caused by the increasing number of a/c they had in reserve IIRC, and not due to pilot losses!!), but the LW never had more than 1.1 pilots per 109.

Of course the Brits had no way of knowing how well off they weer at the time, and they certainly felt outnumbered……but what good is 20/20 hindsight unless you actually use it?!

In our rules, the Franks are the first to really do "Western Charge Bonus" and keep doing it for centuries. This is defined by Anna Comnena as the charge that would "make a hole through the walls of Babylon."

Except Anna Commnena was referring to all western knights, not just Franks. There was some discussion on the DBMM list about whether English 100 years war mounted knights should count superior as on the few occasions English and French knights fought mounted the English came off best.
I would have thought other knights such as Serbs might get your Western charge bonus. Wasn't it Ankara where the Ottoman Serb allies charged 3 times through Timur's best cavalry?

Hi

Actually, our first listing is with Goths, but no matter.

I think that "franks" was being used in the same manner Anna did it, the western folks she called "franks" not specifially the french. Arguably, the italians(not norman) aka "lombards" do not.

R

Am I the only one trying to work out the link between the battle of Britain and superior French knights? OK I admit I'm not really trying to work it out…

The First Crusade "Franks" were in the vast majority French, if that changes anything.

Hi

I was merely commenting on my observation on the format of british writers: "we didn't have a chance, they were overwhelming, but we won handily by british pluck and skill".

The BOB is a clear example, and I think one might agree that most of the colonial reports make things seem hopeless until they win. Thus, the superiority of the french nation in cav might be the same thing. I have seen srticles in various histories where the germans explain THEY were better. I don't honestly know.

With charging knights what I observed is that SOME cav have fights where the glorious charge crashes into opponents and ends in a grand melee, and other troops where they seem to charge over,through whole groups ending up on the other side with blown horses. But this latter over run doesn't happen with many groups, however, isn't restricted to the "french".

Rocky

"we didn't have a chance, they were overwhelming, but we won handily by british pluck and skill".

That DOES sound familiar…. Battle of Britain stats, though, now that is new to me. How interesting.

That DOES sound familiar…. Battle of Britain stats, though, now that is new to me. How interesting.

Don't get too excited about that! Although the figures look impressive Fighter Command had to cover a lot. They had to protect all the ports on the south coast and the west. Cover the east coast against raids, not just the south east where the Luftwaffe main effort was. Also you can't discount the bombers. The bombers were the main target for the RAF whereas Luftwaffe 109's could concentrate on shooting down oppossing fighters. Even in the big wing formations pioneered by Bader 3 out of the 5 squadrons would attack the bombers leaving just 2 to take on the 109's.

Hi

The issue would Fred would be like the Germans counting men involved, and the including the crews on the transports, and the dock workers.

In histories of aircombat, the targets are treated as part of the aircombat ratios, where, in fact, selecting only some targets one might skew the numbers any which way. As your post proves. And it effectively makes my point.

I would, reverting to the thread, actually prefer to just ignore the legendary French quality, and actually look at fights and see how often the are defeated, how often they run over people and so on. On most games, the designer just assumes that the reputation has a validity that results in just giving more combat value.

Oddly the same approach that Zocchi used in his game on BOB and Luftwaffe.

It might be a necessity when your rules are of large enough scale that they might as well be a boardgame, but as figs gamers where a fig might be a man, I think it useful to decide if there is some basis to this.

R