[Måns]

Like everybody else, you are free to PM me, in a sensible and polite tone, of course. But I have never had a problem with you until you obviously had one with me. If you still have a problem with me, PM me, after all, it IS your problem and not mine.

I know that my appearánce in this thread has been sadly one sided but it has had to be so. What I have said is true, on medieval armies and Faramir. Look for example at Saladin, probably the greatest medieval general, he was during his wars against the Kingdom of Jerusalem only close to be in combat once, and that was at Mont Gisard, his only defeat. That was ab ambush upon his army when it was in marching column and he had no chance of evading that his guard came into combat, he was in the middle of it! There si a diference ehre that I have been trying to point out, it is quite subtle. Kings and captains were excpected to be in the battles and, if necessary partake in them personally with their guard. The difference between this unfrequent appearance in the frontline and staying back adn Faramir's reckless but brave behaviour is that eh fought in the front line. You say that Faramir was there to controll his men, and I ask once again, what time had he to notice or do anything aobut whatever happened around him if he was struggling for his life to survive. Because that is what a battle was and is about, every man fighting to survive. You say that a battle could not be run through couriers in those times,, but that is actually what they were, if any orders were needed. What is not commonly known is the exact precision of the medieval armies in command, peasantry excluded. Ordering was effective and exact. But when the battle had ensued there was little a commander could do, since whatever sound signals he amde were not heard, visual signals not seen, move orders unable to carry out. What the commander could do in that situation was to direct the reserves, foremost among which was, of course, his personal guard. If necessary he threw it in the balance. The reason why he still had to at least retain a visual contact with his men was that the back lines, those who started fleeing first, regularly,were looking abck at the commander, to see signs of how the battle was going. If he ws retreating, they relaized that this was going no good and would probably follow his example. If he wasn't seen, they would presume that he had retreated. More importantly, he could personally use his reserve elite guard to calm down a crisis, simply by putting them behind troops that appear to be wavering, so as to show them he was behind, or even if necessary break into the battle. He just had to keep out fo the battle as long as possible. No wise King or commander ever voluntarily charged into the enemy, there are countless examples of the contrary, wise men who kept behind the lines. Did Henry fight in Agincourt? Did his French opponent? Did Barbarossa in all his campaigns fight? Isn't it odd that Kings seldomly die in battle, the last example drowned. I can keep in giving examples for ages, but I will contend with Caesar, who did the same at Alesia as William at Hastings, however not medieval, commanding battles changed little from his time to Richard the First. He raised the banner of his bodyguard and charged downhill at the Gauls, his purple clothes shwon clearly in the front. He did so because he had an amazing reputation among his trooops and knew that the effect of the charge would be tremendous upon their morale, and grievous for his enemies. I am not yet convinced of the opposite, as you see, but if anyone would want this thread to be a little wider, just tell me and we can open a thread for this alone.

Måns

By the way, I love getting 1 ratings, I can't stand any serious rating by anyone. I will not say anything that is rash, I contend with asking you others not to be as childish as these people and give me, and everybody else, the rating deserved and earned.

[ August 18, 2003: Message edited by: Måns ]