Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Medieval warfare task force

Scope

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reasoning behind going with round dates (500 and 1500) rather than putting down specific events to delimit the period in question (not that it really matters, though). —Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fall of the Western Roman Empire is a good starting point although it only really matters to Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Durova 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course you believe the Donner hypothesis that it was the Islamic conquests starting in 634 that began the Middle Ages in Europe. BTW, for the Middle East, I'm pretty sure the starting date is the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate in 750. Palm_Dogg 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Either way, Military tactics changed dramatically with the fall of Rome. I think that's sufficient for our purposes. Durova 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the "middle ages" or "medieval society" refers more to a particular sort of society and a particular stage in the development of a culture or civilization. Depending on which culture one is talking about, the medieval or feudal period may extend far beyond the year boundaries set here. It's a rough guideline. The separation between classic/ancient and medieval China is I think a rather fuzzy one, and Japan (among many other places) could be argued to have remained "medieval" all the way up into the 19th century. Kirill, anyone else, if you think the dates should be considered more solid than I'm proposing, feel free to contradict me. LordAmeth 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a fuzzy line. It depends, I think, on whether we consider social changes (the abandonment of feudal social structure) or military changes (the widespread use of firearms) as the deciding factor. So long as we have some guideline dates, we can handle anything outside of those as a special case. —Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia is also a a difficult case. Using social changes as a guideline doesn't help: at least one historian has argued that Ethiopia became more of a feudal society under the 20th century Emperor Haile Selassie than it was 100 years before. As for tactics, Ethiopian military history could be divided into 3 periods (here I'm ignoring the military history of Axum -- But I have failed to find much about this period anyway):

• Combat before the introduction of firearms. Troops armed with spears, shields & no body armor.
• Introduction of firearms. This happened between 1520 & 1530 when the Muslim Ahmad Gragn obtained about 200 muskets & some cannons & with these overran the Ethiopian highlands. Eventually his christian adversaries obtained their own firearms, & these augmented spears & shields. Cavalry (especially Oromo cavalry) was also a major factor in this period.
• The introduction of modern warfare. Ethiopian tactics did not advance much until the 19th century; perhaps one of the most influential events was the British 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia, where many Ethiopian leaders witnessed their first modern army. I may be speculating here, but its hard not to see this exposure influence Emperors Yohannes IV & Menelik II in their own actions: Yohannes recruited John Kirkham to help train his soldiers along British lines, & Menelik successfully persued a course of obtaining modern firearms, which led to his vicotry at Adowa.

I would say that the first 2 periods best fit what might be thought as "Medieval warfare": all of the battles up to the last one of the reign of Emperor Tewodros II, or until 1868.

(Note: I just saw Durova's note on Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board asking about medieval African battles; I can't explain why no one at least pointed him to Category:Battles of Ethiopia.) -- llywrch 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Like we have seen here, trying opt fit the medieval periode via historic or social events can be mind boodling on a world scale. It could be that a simple, nearly random and rounded, set of dates could be the most objective parameter. For this 500 to 1500 seems to fit. Of course we could always produce more task forces to cope with some of the very good points presented above, i.e. European Medieval, African, "Islamic", Oriental... This though would probobly be more complicated a solution than anything we come up with here.

Being of European descent I've always thought of the middle ages comprising of the era between fall of the Roman Empire and the final collapse of that Empire's influence with the Byzantine Empire's end. But I do concure that the middle ages had a distinct set of social and cultural parameters, or at the very least some pronounced charactersistics. Dryzen 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there's a distinction to be drawn between medieval warfare and medieval/feudal social systems. From a warfare standpoint, there's a clear separation between pre-firearms warfare and post-firearms warfare; and this happens to coincide with the adoption of the arquebus in Europe circa 1500. This seems a natural point at which to split task forces; and while the exact dates may vary to some degree around the world, we could simply say that anything involving firearms to any significant degree is outside the scope of this task force. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for making a template so quickly. It's hard to see the image in such a small box - maybe pick a simpler logo? I'll look around for alternatives. Durova 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just picked one of the first pictures to show up in a search. If you can find something simpler, that'd be great. —Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I particularly like the last two images. Paolo Uccello did some fine work. Durova 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The first two aren't that good, since they won't show up too well on the yellow template background. The other three look fine; maybe go with the fifth one? —Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The fifth one is more dramatic. The fourth one shows the best contrast. Of course, there's a soft spot in my heart for... :) Durova 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Image:Kingarthur montypython.jpg

Careful, you'll bring the fair-use police down on us ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. BTW when I take a step back from my computer no. 4 is easiest to recognize. Let's go with that one. Durova 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. —Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know a template existed. While building my Userbox I searched for Task Force templates. I ended up making one based off of the canadian Military Task Force template. Here are the tempaltes I produced:

• User:Task Force/Middle Ages Mil-Hist
• User:Task Force/Classicla Rome Mil-Hist (this one has a type-o if anyone can fix the page name please feal free to proceed.
• Template:User Byzantine
  

Dryzen 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold I've added an invitation to the community bulletin board on the community portal. I'll go tag some articles now. Yesterday I started Siege of Compiègne and it's too depressing to write about Joan of Arc's capture. Durova 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Finished the siege and nominated for "Did you know...?" Think it's good enough for Wikipedia:Good articles? It has 11 line citations. Durova 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit on the short side, but I suppose that may be more due to lack of available material. More fixably, it needs {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and {{Campaignbox Hundred Years' War}} added. —Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

It looks like the military history project neglected the Mongol empire. None of the articles I saw were even tagged for the main project and the subject is undercategorized. It could use some attention. Durova 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think oldwindybear was doing some work in that area, but it would be more content-writing and less administrative stuff. —Kirill Lokshin 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Medieval warfare

This is an underused category that needs our attention. Durova 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries

Dates with fewer than 5 events listed: Durova 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• January: 6, 10 - Battle of Vaslui (couldn't add, page protected), 12, 13, 19, 26
• February: 1, 7
• March: 2
• April: 13, 24, 29
• May: 12, 15
• June: 3, 10, 20 Added Battle of Chalons.
• July: 5, 9
• August: 7
• September: 2, 28
• October: N/A
• November: N/A
• December: 4, 19, 25

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages already exists so there might be a little duplication of effort...but if you create new articles, please also let us know at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles. Adam Bishop 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

True enough. It's scope is rather broader than military history, of course, and I don't think it's very active in any case. —Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Knights

The article Knight needs a lot of work. One of the things it needs is a straightening out of the various meanings of "the origin of knighthood", which can mean a number of things: origin of the institution, origin of the English word, origin of the equivalent French/Latin/Greek words, and origin of the technology of heavy cavalry.

The last, as it now exists, has been contributed by an Iranian nationalist, who is certain that medieval heavy cavalry is directly copied from Sarmatian/Arsacid/Byzantine prototypes. My recollection is that the situation is far more complicated, but I don't have the sources in front of me; would one of you please have a look at it? Septentrionalis 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the page and contributed to linguistics. Some of its assertions are dubious. I'll give it some more attention, although probably not enough to raise to Wikipedia:Good article status. Durova 16:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work indeed. In regards to the heavy cavalry influence, I've read a lot on medieval knights and warefare and that is the first I have heard of that suggestion. He mentions Sarmatians and England, but the English didn't develop any mounted warfare. The Normans brought the heavy cavalryman to England. The Saxon Huscarl fought on foot. I would agree there was probably some influence on it, but probably indirectly. The Germanic tribes were known for their cavalryman, many of which fought with the Romans throughout Gaul, Britain, etc. as auxilleries. The early knights wore mail armor which had been around for over a thousand years, cavalryman had been wearing it for just as long. When you take all this into context, it was probably more just an evolution of the cavalryman.

Military advances of Genghis Khan

Here's something quick. Something fails to recognize the new category Category:Military history of the Mongol Empire as a category, so the category notice floats up to the references and the article doesn't appear on the category page. Anyone know a fix to this glitch? Durova 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. "Category" was misspelled as "Cateogry" ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Durova 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I was looking for external links to improve Do-maru and found this site. Now I'm considering nominating the page for deletion as copyvio. Seeking second opinions before I act. [1] Durova 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a definite similarity in sentence structure, but it doesn't look like an actual copyvio to me, considering how different the texts are. Most likely the person who wrote the original stub just tried to follow the style used by the source. —Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Please be cautious about jumping in and making any changes related to Knights Templar articles, including both the medieval order and the freemason degree, especially if you have not previously participated in any of those discussions. We've been going through some elaborate consensus-building negotiations with some very strong opinions in a "page renaming" RfC, so it's important that this Middle Ages task force (which overall is a good idea), doesn't go in and make things further complicated by forcing through changes without getting consensus. If anyone does want to participate in the RfC, you are more than welcome. Best current location is: Talk:Knights Templar (military order). --Elonka 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've received a message about that on my user page and responded on article talk. Hadn't realized the new category could step on any toes. I'll be watching that talk page for any other concerns. Cheers, Durova 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting and category creation

Here's a brief on what I've been doing lately: Category:Medieval warfare was severely underpopulated when this task force started. Logically it should be our top tier category, but fewer than twenty articles used to connect to it. I've made it a navigation hub: as of this writing it holds 47 subcategories and 133 individual articles.

A lot of those individual articles are battles. As much as possible, I sort those individual battles into subcategories or create new subcategories to house them. I prefer to create subcategories devoted to specific wars and campaigns. Some of the subcategories are for countries, but I've only included extinct countries. Burgundy fits neatly because France subsumed it in the fifteenth century. I've also included Bavaria, which ceased to be an independent state in the nineteenth century. I don't include Norway. Country-based categories are somewhat problematic. In the long run I'd like to see more war- and campaign-based subcategories and very few individual battles within the main category.

In the meantime the reverse will occur. I'm sorting orphaned stubs and the easiest place to drop them is into the main category. Quite frankly I'm not familiar with all of this vast period. The effort could use assistance from editors who know the wars of Irish history (or Balkan history, etc.). Durova 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding work! I might add that it's always been our intention to have more categories for wars and campaigns (see the "Categories" section on the main project page for the general idea); but medieval warfare has, as you noted, been suffering from a certain lack of coordinated effort. —Kirill Lokshin 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• blush* I wasn't fishing for compliments... Actually my reasoning has been, a first step toward improving the subject of Middle Ages warfare is to make the existing information easier to locate. It probably wasn't obvious why there are so many unsorted battles under the general category. BTW all the relevant battle articles I work on get the tag for the Middle Ages task force. So if another editor finds an article that already has that tag on the talk page, it's near certain that the article is already in our category architecture. Durova 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get another new article onto Did you know?

I started Chausse yesterday. It has two images but it's still a bit thin on content. Fellow armor buffs, let's improve this so it's ready for Did you know? Durova 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

My flurry of entries under the work list should subside for a while. I'm collaborating toward raising Joan of Arc in art to FL status. Still making improvements to things more directly related to this task force, but not the kind of major changes that need logging. Durova 07:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A little tangential to this task force: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Durova 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We've made our third appearance on Wikipedia's main page with chausse. Durova 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hussites

I have recently completed a research paper on the Hussite Wars and thus might be able to assist you all in cleaning up that section. I used some of it as a source but I could see work needed to be done. The thing is I am very new to Wikipedia so I'll need someone over my shoulder to help with the proper format. Timotheus4 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortress or Fort?

Hi.

What is the main difference to a Fort and a Fortress?

We are not quite sure what we should call this "Trelleborg". It was also used as settlements.

Description of the Fortress or Fort

The fortress of Trelleborg covers an area of approximately 15 acres. It is constructed as an inner and an outer court, situated between the Tude Stream and the Vaarby Stream, which serves as a natural protection in three directions. The outer fortress is enclosed by a rampart stretching from stream to stream, thus cutting off the entire peninsula. It has been estimated that 50% all oak on Zealand was cut down to construct the fortress.

The inner court consists of a perfectly circular earthen rampart, approximately 180 meters in diameter. Four gates pointing towards the four corners of the world give access to the inner court, and the gates are connected by two wooden walkways crossing in the middle, and by a narrow road following the rampart. The inner rampart is approximately 17 meters wide, 5 meters high, and contains about 25.000 square meters of earth, stone and timber. The rampart was entirely covered in oak planks, and almost vertical on the outside. On top of it was a palisade, and a shooting gallery streched all the way around the outside of the rampart. The inner as well as the outer rampart is supplemented by a moat, the inner one being distinctly larger than the outer. With its width of almost 17 meters and a depth of app. 4 meters, it would present a serious obstacle to a charging enemy. The moats were never water filled, but in the bottom of the inner one was found traces of a series of poles that may have been sharpened at the top, or may possibly just have been an simple fence.

To the south east was a wooden bridge, situated exactly between the two main gates to the inner court. Thus, an enemy had the furthest possible distance to move along the rampart to reach the gates, exposed to the weapons of the defenders. The gates were covered, and considerable stone foundations around the gates indicate some kind of towers on top of the gates.

The inner court has traces of 16 longhouses, built in four courts with a common square. On two of these squares – the northeastern and the soutwestern – were smaller rectangular buildings. At the northern and the western gate were two small, square houses. Traces have been found of a number of other buildings in the fortress, but it is uncertain whether these are a part of the fortress; it is possible that they are not contemporary with the fortress. Furthermore, a number of wells and waste deposits were found in the area.

In the outer court are 15 longhouses, side by side along the outer rampart. However, two of these are situated about 30 meters from the others. The outer court also has traces of other, smaller types of buildings. The northern end of the outer rampart has a rectangular extension, enclosing the burial area of the fortress. 157 graves were located here, most of them single graves, but a few are minor mass graves. There were very little grave goods found with the skeletons.

The size of the garrison is not known with certainty, but a total of between 500 and 800 persons is not unlikely. It is, however, possible that the fortress has not been fully manned at all time, but was kept by a small garrison that could be supplemented in times of crisis.

While the houses of the inner court were primarily living quarters, the finds from the outer court suggest that these houses were also used as stables and workshops. Only the two southernmost buildings of the outer court had traces of fireplaces. The outer rampart and moat were considerably smaller than those of the inner court, and no traces of palisades or other reinforcements were found; possibly the outer defences were never completed. The outer moat was more narrow and shallow than the inner one, and there are no indications of a series of poles at the bottom. Access to the outer court was via an opening in the rampart in the westernmost end towards Vaarby Stream, across a small bridge over the moat.

The characteristic longhouses are all basically the same, about 30 meters long and 10 meters wide. The walls are curved, and all of the inner court longhouses and 9 of the outer court ones were divided into one large central room, 18 meters long, and a smaller room in each end. The longhouses were built entirely from wood and supported on the outside by a series of tilting beams; possibly the beams carrying the roof were continued into the ground to strengthen the entire construction.

--Comanche cph 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any formal distinction between the two terms, but I would tend to use "fortress" or "castle" for medieval structures, particularly complex ones. (You could, of course, use "fortification" and avoid the issue; but it's a somewhat less-used term.) Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've generally senn and used therms fort and fortress wiht consideration to there size and location, such as the Fortress of Louisbourg vs. Fort Carillon. The fortress being a large structure with multiple systems of defences holding a strategic location and manned by a large garrison, usualy nearby or encopassing a sizable civillian population.(Webster says: a large and permanent fortification sometimes including a town ) Wherehas fort will generally be a keep, bailey and rampart holding a strategic way (a road, valley or seaway) manned by a contigent of forces, usualy in a less populous region. (Webster says:a fortified place occupied only by troops and surrounded with such works as a ditch, rampart, and parapet). These distinctions could also mainly be within the french language.Dryzen 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Numbers and organization

I've been reading aroudn on the subject nad have been colelcting some large amounts of valuable information. I've posted within the Byzantine Navy and the Byzantine aristocracy and bureaucracy talks for a go ahead on making some changes. Just wanted to post here where it might be seen a bit faster. Any suggestiosn on proceedure and form are welcomed.Dryzen 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, silence is acquiescence ;-)

(If you're looking for more specific advice on how to structure things in regards to Byzantine topics, you might ask Adam Bishop, as he's very knowledgeable in that area.) Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Dryzen 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably don't want to ask me, I can't be bothered getting involved in Byzantine stuff anymore. Try, I don't know, Imladjov, or check Talk:Byzantine Empire and ask one of the petty squabblers there. Adam Bishop 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well for the moment the squalblers are re-living that time loop Greek-Roman debate and are not paying attention to the other sections. I'll slowly build up some innformation and put the titles where the rest of them are. Possibly put in some more information in the Byzantine battle tactics and Byzantine Navy. Once done I'dd appreaciate your comments, or if you have any suggestiosn along the way. Thanks.Dryzen 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Castle

Posted at Military History Wikiproject (it was suggested I let you guys know, too):

I've been working on a number of castle-related articles over the past few month (list can be seen at my user page), but it struck me today that Castle, which I've been avoiding because the size of the topic, should really be a featured article.

I'm really only knowledgable about British castles up to about 1400, with a smattering of knowledge of Crusader castles.

I'm prepared to start tackling Castle but could do with some help, particularly beyond the limits of my knowledge. --Dweller 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine army article needs a lot more work

I am surprised by how little interest there seems to be in such an important article. It really needs some work - there are whole sections missing, there is very little about where and against whom the army fought, how effective it was, or any mention of its major battles. I've been doing quite a lot of work on it recently, but it needs more. Please, surely there must be somebody on here who knows or cares about this article, and would be willing to help improve it? It's been 7 months since my last appeal for help, but apart from some contributions by Dryzen, almost nothing has been done by anyone other than myself... Bigdaddy1204 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It as mostly been lack of time that has been keeping me from introducing more information. I have now na extencive librabry on the subject yet have had little chance to delve within its knowledge. Heed the call of Bigdaddy1204 and come lend a hand with Byzantine articles.--Dryzen 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexandrian Crusade

I just created this article and, although I'm not a member of this WikiProject, I used one of your templates on the talk page. I hope this is OK.

I see from the FAQ for this WikiProject that non-members can add such tags but of course if people involved in the project wish to alter it or remove it then I'll defer. Nach0king 10:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for creating the article! Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moirae (military)

Any of you ever hear of this Byzantine military administration? From its name I would think it a Meros (Merẽ)/Turma. From its commander's title its a Drungus/Chilliarchy and from its unit tree half the Imperial Tagmata. What ever it is it needs attention. Opinions and information is greatly appreaciated. --Dryzen 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I delete this or change it to Meros?--Dryzen 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, doing something to it is probably a good idea. Hopefully it can wind up redirected somewhere so that it doesn't get recreated; but please do whatever you think is most appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New map

If anyone here is good at maps, I request a new map showing the partition of the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ideally, the territories taken by each power should be shown in different colours. Can anyone help? Bigdaddy1204 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll check what I can find. I just received Gibbons(fall) and Treadgold(State) and can put the maps in ArcMap. I have both Theme maps of Treadgold (Armies) digitized and am fillign in the GIS information in my spare time. BTW, ever heard of the Moirae?--Dryzen 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)