Infantry - A Summary

In England armies had passed through the same changes as in France, but the soil was less congenial to feudalism. Jutes and Anglo-Saxons came over in bands from different districts, and were only by slow degrees amalgamated into a nation. The Britons were mostly driven westward, instead of forming a subject population. The “folk” of each tribe controlled its affairs, and imposed restrictions on the right of private war. For war with other tribes, or defence against a foreign enemy, there was a general levy, the ” fyrd.” ” The folk-moot was in fact the war-host, the gathering of every freeman of the tribe in arms. . . . But the strength of an English army lay not only in these groups of villagers. Mingled with them were the voluntary war bands that gathered round distinguished chiefs.” ^ These bands of retainers were better equipped and more serviceable than the men of the fyrd, and superseded it in the time of stress caused by the inroads of the Norsemen. The sufferings of the people added to the power of the kings, who gave grants of land to their companions or ” thegns,” subject to the obligation of military service. The larger landlords made similar grants to their ” cnihts ” ; ‘^ sometimes weapons were provided as well as land. In Alfred’s time it was enacted that all owners of 5 hides of land. In England “knight” came to stand for the highest class of soldiery, while in Germany it dropped down to campfollowers. The knight was miles, not cqucs, while his equivalent abroad was ” Ritter ” or ” chevalier.” (probably 600 acres) should be reckoned as thegns and bound to thegn service, while smaller owners must combine to furnish an armed man for every 5 hides.

In England as in France, danger led the smaller land^ owners tojlace themselves under the protection of greater men, and to take an oath of fealty pledging themselves to be faithful and true, to love all that their lord loves and eschew all that he eschews.* The overlords took a similar oath to the king, and the king looked to them to bring the due number of armed men into the field. In this way something very like the feudal system was to be found in England before the Conquest, but it was developed by William I., who made grants to his followers on feudal tenure, and fixed the number of knights they were to furnish without much regard to hidage, by units of five or ten. The feudal force of England a century after the Conquest is estimated at 5000 knights.

The germ of feudalism is to be seen in Tacitus’s description of the German tribes, though the fruit was slow in forming : ” It is the renown and glory of a chief to be distinguished for the number and valour of his followers. … To defend, to protect him, to ascribe one’s own brave deeds to his renown, is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory ; his vassals fight for their chief . . . men look to the liberality of their chief for their war-horse and their blood-stained and victorious lance. Feasts and entertainments, which, though inelegant, are plentifully furnished, are their only pay. The means of this bounty come from war and rapine It is a duty among them to adopt the feuds as well as the friendships of a father or a kinsman.”

Bands held together by ties of this kmd might co for a time into an army, but they fought for pe not for national objects. Their chiefs claimed the ngh of private war, and courts of justice were –ely court of conciliation whose awards were not bmdmg. In the rudest times there was little difference of equipment between one man and another, but the conquest of the Roman provinces put wealth and technical skill at their disposal, and the art of the armourer fostered inequal y^ The weight of armour tempted men to ride, and rapidity of movement was important for the forays and skirmishes of which private war mainly consisted. Hence the chief and his chosen followers became mounted men-at-arms Those who had neither horses nor armour fought at great disadvantage and were held in contempt The Ly name “infantry” is significant. It dates from a time when those who went afoot were the lads m attendance on armoured horse soldiers for whom the term miles came to be reserved.

Charlemagne resisted this tendency. While exacting due service from his vassals, and doing his best to secure a large and well-armed force of cavalry, he msisted on the old principle of the “ban,” that every IVeeman was bound to serve at the king’s summons. In order to obtain a well-equipped infantry militia instead of a mere horde of peasants, such as would be yielded by a levy en .nassX provided that the smaller owners sho^d be grouped, and that one of them should eo as the armed at their joint cost. But under his successors this militia fell mto disuse.