60 army and military organization
Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Image in His-
tory and Literature(Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1981); Robert
W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Litera-
ture to 1500 AD(Turnhout: Brepols, 1995); J. J. S. Weiten-
berg, ed., New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language
and Literature(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995).
army and military organization The European early
medieval military system was based on the Germanic idea
that all free men capable of bearing arms were to serve in
the army of the ruler or chief in command. The late
Roman tradition was based on professional, paid standing
armies supplemented by contractual soldiers, especially
CAVALRY. A concern for effectiveness and a vision of soci-
ety led in the central Middle Ages to the designation of a
group of professional warriors as the sole defenders of
community structures, the church, and society.
FEUDALISMBy the ninth and 10th centuries, armies were formed
around a core of heavy horsemen initially more appropri-
ate for mobility than for actual fighting. This preponder-
ance of armored cavalry did not eliminate the need for
more lightly armed combatants or auxiliaries on foot,
notably archers. In the 10th to the 11th centuries, FEU-
DALISMand the feudal organization of the military system
made obligated service the primary source of the recruit-
ment and deployment of armies. The vassal or KNIGHT,
who had to serve his lord with arms and horses, also had
to accompany the combatants or lead those he was
responsible for providing. Armor grew more expensive
and complex as projectiles became more common, pene-
trating, and deadly.
MILITARY EXPANSIONFrom the mid-11th century onward, European armies
launched great expeditions such as the conquest of EN-
GLANDin 1066 and the First Crusade in 1095–99. A need
for more manpower obliged war leaders to hire merce-
naries and professional soldiers, who proliferated in a
significant way from the 12th century. At the same time,
the rise of towns involved the appearance of urban mili-
tias, some of whom were actually able to defeat profes-
sionals. Peasant communities were expected to provide
armies with transport and serve as noncombatant service
personnel.
LATER MIDDLE AGES IN THE WESTIn the 13th century, the employment of voluntary and
mercenary troops grew. The number of knights fell while
the number of unknighted and not-quite-noble soldiers
expanded. New and more sophisticated siege techniques
created a demand for miners, pioneers, and engineers,
while archers and crossbowmen became more effective
and better deployed in combat. In the late-13th century,
the custom of paying men to fight, including even those
who served as a feudal obligation, spread, particularly in
FRANCE.
In the 14th century, the social context for recruit-
ment of armies became more heterogeneous. In Italy from
the beginning of the 14th century, mercenaries dominated
papal, communal, and princely armies. Some of these
captains did so well they acquired states for themselves.
In any case, raising and equipping armies became for
everyone a much more expensive proposition. That
expense did not, however, significantly slow down the
increase in armed conflict that occurred almost every-
where in the 14th century.
The HUNDREDYEARS’WARled to further change. The
system of raising and maintaining only temporarily
troops as circumstance merited was both expensive and
productive of disorder when the fighters became unem-
ployed. Much of France and Italy suffered from maraud-
ing and blackmailing bands of predatory unemployed
soldiers. In response King CHARLESVII of France created
a permanent or standing army by hiring regular compa-
nies on long-term contract in 1445. His example was
soon copied by CHARLESthe Bold, duke of Burgundy, and
then by his own successor, King LOUISXI.BYZANTINE
Byzantium maintained the military structures and prac-
tices of the late empire with a centrally controlled army
established in garrisons. Along the frontier, troops were
garrisoned to oppose barbarian raids. These troops were
recruited from throughout the empire, especially from
among tough mountain peoples such as the Isaurians,
established by treaty within the limits of the empire. The
numbers of this force were constantly diminishing. In the
early fifth century the empire was supporting 500,000
soldiers, but by the time of the ambitious JUSTINIANthe
Byzantine army seemingly was reduced to no more than
150,000 soldiers, primarily cavalry. The army of BELISAR-
IOS, Justinian’s most able general, sent to conquer North
Africa from the Vandals, might have numbered only
14,000 combatants.
The devastating invasions of the SLAVSand AVARS,
then Persian and Arab victories, led to reorganization of
the military system of the empire. In the reforms of the
second half of the seventh century, troops were dis-
tributed over the territory still controlled by Byzantium,
thus forming thematic or regional armies. A new central
army, the tagmata,was established as the garrison of the
capital. When needed it reinforced the regional armies to
repel offensives by Muslims or Bulgars or to take initia-
tive in operations against these same enemies. This orga-
nization had its greatest successes in the 10th and 11th
centuries. At the same time more mercenaries were hired,
especially RUS ́ and even NORMANS. The emperors at
Nicaea in the early 13th century had small but often vic-
torious armies of mercenaries, especially TURKS and