Engaging enemy with a large band of fully armoured men is not a raid in east, that would be a minor campaign, battle. raiding is for plundering and taking slaves and that was not a regular part of the lives of feudals and proffessionals, they would generally do that in campaigns and I doubt even these kind of raids would be done by armoured bands.
Okay everybody: Let's settle this Raid vs Not Raid argument now. Here's the Wikipedia entry about raids. Read the whole thing, then contemplate silently to yourselves and make what you will of it. No more spamming the thread with this stuff. Yes, I see the ironic hypocrisy of what I just said.
Among many tribal societies, raiding was the most common and lethal form of warfare. Taking place at night, the goal was to catch the enemy sleeping to avoid casualties to the raiding party.[1] Cattle raiding was a major feature of Irish society in the Iron Age and forms the central plot of the historical epic Táin Bó Cúailnge (English :Cattle Raid of Cooley).
Small scale raiding warfare was common in Western European warfare of the Middle Ages. Much of a professional soldiers' time could be spent in "little war", carrying out raids or defending against them.[2] Typical of this style of warfare was the mounted raid or chevauchée, popular during the Hundred Years War. Chevauchées varied in size from a few hundred men to armies of thousands, and could range in scope from attacks on nearby enemy areas to the devastation of whole regions, such as that carried out by the Black Prince in Southern France in 1355. This last is notable not just for its success and scope but the fact that the raiders deliberately captured records in order to carry out a post-operational analysis of the impact of the raid on the enemy economy[3]
The largest of raids in history can be considered that of the series of raids during and following the Mongol invasion of Central Asia, while at lower level raids had been staged by the Cossacks of the Zaporizhian Sich, the Grande Armée, and the cavalry raids during the American Civil War such as the Morgan's Raid,[4] and numerous examples of small group raids behind enemy lines from all periods in military history.
In the operational level of war, raids were the precursors in the development of the Operational Manoeuvre Groups in the Soviet Army as early as 1930s.
It specifically states that the Chevauchees were raids, regardless of the massive size, and the knights, peasants, and footmen participating were "raiders". Raids evolved like all forms of warfare: it started with minor tribal raids, then progressed to strategic mass devastation. So, you're both correct, but just speaking of different types of raiding.
Anyone with any knowledge beyond the superficial of the period knows that the most common form of warfare in the medieval period (and possibly throughout history) is raiding. Second to this would be sieges and, a far third, open battle. I don't know why he is getting butt-hurt about whether or not such and such raided or didn't raid.
If you read in depth about the crusades (either in the Holy Land or in the Baltic) you will quickly see how prominent raiding enemy villages was. Why? Money and food...two things every army and commander likes.
Anyone with any knowledge beyond the superficial of the period knows that the most common form of warfare in the medieval period (and possibly throughout history) is raiding. Second to this would be sieges and, a far third, open battle.
I don't know why he is getting butt-hurt about whether or not such and such raided or didn't raid.
1. Yes, I'm in complete concurrence with you there. Raiding and sieges were by far more common because pitched battles were putting to much at stake, especially because of the dominance of heavy cavalry in the early-high period.
2. Let's try not to be inflammatory, butt-hurt, while a wonderful adjective in this situation , is something better said to a person's face rather than online... you don't know who the person is whom you're insulting.
Now please, let's drop this... I'll start by not posting about this anymore.
Okay everybody: Let's settle this Raid vs Not Raid argument now. Here's the Wikipedia entry about raids. Read the whole thing, then contemplate silently to yourselves and make what you will of it. No more spamming the thread with this stuff. Yes, I see the ironic hypocrisy of what I just said.
Among many tribal societies, raiding was the most common and lethal form of warfare. Taking place at night, the goal was to catch the enemy sleeping to avoid casualties to the raiding party.[1] Cattle raiding was a major feature of Irish society in the Iron Age and forms the central plot of the historical epic Táin Bó Cúailnge (English :Cattle Raid of Cooley).
Small scale raiding warfare was common in Western European warfare of the Middle Ages. Much of a professional soldiers' time could be spent in "little war", carrying out raids or defending against them.[2] Typical of this style of warfare was the mounted raid or chevauchée, popular during the Hundred Years War. Chevauchées varied in size from a few hundred men to armies of thousands, and could range in scope from attacks on nearby enemy areas to the devastation of whole regions, such as that carried out by the Black Prince in Southern France in 1355. This last is notable not just for its success and scope but the fact that the raiders deliberately captured records in order to carry out a post-operational analysis of the impact of the raid on the enemy economy[3]
The largest of raids in history can be considered that of the series of raids during and following the Mongol invasion of Central Asia, while at lower level raids had been staged by the Cossacks of the Zaporizhian Sich, the Grande Armée, and the cavalry raids during the American Civil War such as the Morgan's Raid,[4] and numerous examples of small group raids behind enemy lines from all periods in military history.
In the operational level of war, raids were the precursors in the development of the Operational Manoeuvre Groups in the Soviet Army as early as 1930s.
It specifically states that the Chevauchees were raids, regardless of the massive size, and the knights, peasants, and footmen participating were "raiders". Raids evolved like all forms of warfare: it started with minor tribal raids, then progressed to strategic mass devastation. So, you're both correct, but just speaking of different types of raiding.
Anyone with any knowledge beyond the superficial of the period knows that the most common form of warfare in the medieval period (and possibly throughout history) is raiding. Second to this would be sieges and, a far third, open battle.
I don't know why he is getting butt-hurt about whether or not such and such raided or didn't raid.
2. Let's try not to be inflammatory, butt-hurt, while a wonderful adjective in this situation , is something better said to a person's face rather than online... you don't know who the person is whom you're insulting.
Fair enough, though for the record I am the type of person who would say it in person, and not only behind the cloak of anonymity of the internet.
Also, regarding Eastern Warfare, I apologize Inanch-Bilge, but I did not see where you stipulated what that was. To Europeans, the Holy Land was the East. If you mean east as in the Steppes of Asia, there still would be raiding, though on herds and not crops or settlements (generally). As for the Far East, I am not sure as I don't read much about it, but my guess is that if they didn't write about it it was more due to it not being heroic enough to write of. I still think it was common though...an action that simultaneously bolsters your ability to wage war and hurts the enemy's will always be common (just look at the Vietnam War and how the US Army burned villages and crops...it is still common).
It was not usual for raiding groups to be largely heavily armed or come from high class soldiers in eastern warfare(middle east), thats simply what I said, that issue came to very irrevelant points.
Well unfortunately that is not true. There were numerous raids by Muslim armies (armored troops too) during the Crusader period. For example there were numerous such raids against Antioch by forces of Aleppo in the 12th Century, and by Antioch against Aleppo. Some of which resulted in open battles when there was an attempt to stop a raid either inbound or outbound.
I think there are other places to share eachothers knowledge like PM's. But I might be off as I have the idea this is a mod thread and the person simple named a video which is not about the name. Because this thread is about the mod. If we all want to get better solve this via PM please because everytime I check this by a new post I see another post of this off topic discussion about raids. Thank you for your understanding
Well unfortunately that is not true. There were numerous raids by Muslim armies (armored troops too) during the Crusader period. For example there were numerous such raids against Antioch by forces of Aleppo in the 12th Century, and by Antioch against Aleppo. Some of which resulted in open battles when there was an attempt to stop a raid either inbound or outbound.
If its a relatively large force with armoured warriors and high class leaders , then its not an usual raid in the east, its a minor campaign.
I repeated the same things before, raiding is ravaging lands, taking slaves etc. and thats generally done by tribal groups, bandit like volunteers etc.(do not give examples from western europe we are talking about middle east) more proper forces were doing raids as well but raiding was the regular part of the former groups are mentioned, even in the raidings done by feudals etc. I highly doubt they would be able muster a completely armoured raiding group, or would do that even if they able to.
If its a relatively large force with armoured warriors and high class leaders , then its not an usual raid in the east, its a minor campaign.
I repeated the same things before, raiding is ravaging lands, taking slaves etc. and thats generally done by tribal groups, bandit like volunteers etc.(do not give examples from western europe we are talking about middle east) more proper forces were doing raids as well but raiding was the regular part of the former groups are mentioned, even in the raidings done by feudals etc. I highly doubt they would be able muster a completely armoured raiding group, or would do that even if they able to.
A completely different military culture, sure why would things be different ?
Forming armoured warbands in significiant numbers was not that easy, to form a well armoured trained warband of hundreds or thousands of men, you have to be a strong local ruler, in most of times, armoured professionals were just something like a retinue of feudal nobles, amirs etc. and its not like anybody would send his ghulams or hired proffessionals to raid while there are countless other troops ready for this.
Forming armoured warbands in significiant numbers was not that easy, to form a well armoured trained warband of hundreds or thousands of men, you have to be a strong local ruler, in most of times, armoured professionals were just something like a retinue of feudal nobles, amirs etc.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
