#medievalwarfare — Public Fediverse posts

Reasons for War in Premodern Societies

Wars do not happen without reason, even if some reasons may seem stupid to modern readers. This is important, because objective of the war also determines the conduct of the war. War whose objective is completely conquering the enemy country will not be fought in the same way as a war whose sole objective is capturing slaves. No country, government or organization is evil simply to be evil – evil people are typically convinced they are doing good! – which means that a war has to have some purpose to achieve. Establishing believable reason for the conflict that drives the story can help in making both the world and the story more internally consistent and immersive.

Scarcity of Resources

Scarcity of resources is a common reason for war. This scarcity does not need to be something critical, though it may be. It could be lack of farming land, or merely attempt to control the lucrative trade route. In Stone Ages, groups of people that ran out of food would take their neighbour’s food. Even in Middle Ages, if one area suffered from bad climactic conditions, solution was often to just go and take neighbours’ food.

Migration

Whenever there is a mass migration, there is a war. Western Roman Empire was destroyed by mass immigration of barbarians, and Mexico lost Texas to mass (and planned) immigration of American settlers. Rome was capable of dealing with different ethnic groups normally – the Empire essentially allowed each group to live as usual, follow their own laws and gods, so long as they paid taxes and obeyed Imperial authorities. But settlement of migratory barbarians placed strain on the system, and while Rome did its best to integrate the newcomers, this proved impossible in the long run. It should be noted here that Western Empire dissolved despite the fact that barbarians generally remained rather loyal to the Emperor – at least on paper.

(Note that this migration itself was caused by expansion of the Chinese Empire. Huns had been raiding China for a long time, until in 400 BC Chinese Emperor got tired of it and directed his generals to chase them away. They did so, which caused a chain reaction of westward migrations by barbarians – with Huns themselves showing up in the west in 400 AD).

Loot and Plunder

Of course, resources need not be scarce for people to want to take neighbour’s resources. In general, the more people have, the more they want. Vikings are a good example of a group whose primary goal was plunder: in fact, name “Viking” itself means simply “raider”. That being said, Vikings did settle elsewhere – see “Land Grab”. It is thus unsurprising that majority of medieval armies – with the exception of the Byzantine and Arab armies – were usually small.

Of course, things could escalate. If a local raid (say, between counties) hit more than one county, then the local war could spread to the next level. And on occasion, this would go up the chain until it involved the entire kingdom.

And this could easily come to place that war would feed itself. In order to defend against the Ottoman expansion as well as opposition from within the kingdom, Matthias Corvinus decided to form a standing mercenary army – first of such type in Europe. But this army was runiously expensive for the resources of the kingdom, and so he was forced to wage basically perpetual wars in order to pay for the army’s upkeep.

In fact, out-of-job mercenaries tended to turn to looting and plunder, becoming in essence well-organized bandit gangs. Best way to deal with the problem was to hire them again and set them loose against one’s enemies.

Slaves

Slaves were another form of loot and plunder – and perhaps one of the earliest forms. Native African tribes used to wage perpetual warfare to enslave each other. This resulted in development of lucrative business when Europeans arrived, with tribes selling captured Africans to European and North American slavers. And while more developed societies such as the Roman Empire rarely waged wars solely for purpose of capturing slaves, slavery as part of motivation as war still should not be discounted.

Land Grab

As authority in feudal system was based on land ownership, taking more land was a big driver in expansion. Otto the First pretty much drove eastwards expansion of the Holy Roman Empire simply to gain more land for his nobles. More importantly, systems with primogeniture mean that all lands go to the eldest son. For younger sons then, the only way to get more land is to conquer it.

Trade

Trade is a major war maker. Trade powers could make war to force other countries to open ports and borders to their trade (famous examples are the Opium Wars). Other times, two countries might fight for control of a particular trade resource, or a trade route. Too many restrictions on trade can cause war as countries seek better economic positions, but too few restrictions also leads to greater probability of war as greater number of potential trade partners reduces bilateral dependance and thus potential cost of waging war.

Geography

Sometimes, a country or a group of people will be attacked because they are located on an important geographical location – see the point about trade routes above. This could also be an important defensive position (e.g. control over a mountain pass), or a potential threat to larger state’s territory their location makes them.

Belief Systems

Religion or political ideology can frequently be a major cause for war. This is most obvious with belief systems which claim to hold universal truths. Historically, monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam had engaged in offensive warfare against unbelievers, either to wipe them out or to convert them to their own religion (Islam being the most obvious offender). Genghis Khan believed it was his destiny to conquer the world for his god, Tengri. In more modern times, secular belief systems which likewise claim to hold existential answers have also caused major wars – obvious examples being communism, nazism and fascism, but also liberalism.

Even when religion or political ideology are not a factor however, cultural differences can still lead to a war. Different beliefs and ways of thinking can cause misunderstandings which may either slowly snowball or suddenly explode into open warfare.

Historical Animosities

Historical animosities are another reason. National mythology often shapes attitudes and even policies. One of major reasons why Hitler could start the Second World War was belief in Germany that country had been betrayed, and also exploited by the victors. And the main reason why ideologies such as Nazism and Fascism were able to spread throughout Europe was the fact that Soviet Union had spent period of 1917 to 1922 invading anybody it could reach (Estonia, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine) and remaining 17 years until 1939 it spent financing various Marxist (Bolshevik) uprisings, revolutionary movements and terrorist groups throughout Europe and wider.

It is important however to understand historical, social and cultural factors which had shaped these animosities, and how they continue to do so in the present.

Historical Claims

Any self-respecting country that loses territory due to enemy invasions is not going to recognize the loss so long as any hope of recovering the territory remains. And this can cause wars. After Western Roman Empire got dissolved by mass immigration of barbarian tribes, Eastern Roman Empire was a natural successor to its claims. At first the East recognized situation on the ground as a de facto reality, but never de iure accepted the loss of the Western Empire. This eventually led to Emperor Justinian attempting to reconquer the West – something he may have succeeded in if not for the Justinianic Plague.

Quest for Glory

Sometimes, wars will be caused merely by people seeking glory. While such motive may seem ridiculous to modern mind, it should not be forgotten that premodern wars were nowhere as destructive as wars of modern times. Back in Antiquity and Middle Ages, war was often seen as a way to gain glory, be it for individual or for the group. In many cases, warfare was almost ritualized. Such honor wars were usually on a much smaller scale than economically or politically caused wars.

Natural Disasters

Volcanoes, hurricanes, but also droughts can leave entire areas uninhabitable. When this happens, a mass exodus ensues. And this exodus can easily take on nature of an invasion (in fact, any large migration is a de facto invasion).

Corrupt Rulers

Rulers or governments (including democratic ones!) can become corrupt and start considering only the interests of a single group or class of people. Once that happens, government may start a war for interests of a particular group or even an individual, or else a rift may open in the country that will lead to a civil war.

Legal Confusion

Wars could easily be caused by legal confusion. Especially feudal legal relations were often complex. For example, after William of Normandy conquered England, he became king of England. But since he was still duke of Normandy, he was technically a vassal to king of France. This was bound to cause trouble. Situation repeated itself later, with Henry V – then King of England – being also the Duke of Aquitaine, and thus bound to swear fealty to the French king.

Succession Struggles

Above would often lead to succession struggles as well. If one kingdom followed inheritance by primogentiure but other had patrilineal inheritance, then a king of one kingdom could easily consider himself to be a king of second kingdom as well, yet be denied. This was the cause of Hundred Years War between England and France, and also why Coloman managed to secure support of Slavonian nobility before attacking southern Croatia (which led to death of king Petar Svačić).

In fact, various legal confusions related to succession were probably the most frequent cause of warfare between kingdoms.

Power Struggles

Barons always looked to restrict power of the monarch, while monarch sought to expand his own powers. While this resulted in something of an equilibrium which allowed greater freedoms, it also meant that king could begin a war simply to redirect barons’ attention elsewhere.

In a feudal system power of the central government also tended to lapse over time. Lack of administration meant that monarch often had to show up in an area in person, with the court essentially travelling the kingdom in a manner of travelling circus. This presence was not always welcome because it was expensive, but expenses were also part of the point – as barons had to host the ruler, they would be too busy planning how to pay the enormous costs which came with the honor to think about rebelling. Further, because authority of the monarch was based on technically land grants, as monarch ran out of land so his authority weakened.

Holy Roman Emperors later on had to wage what were essentially campaigns of conquest in Northern Italy in order to get crowned by the Pope – and then hurry back to Germany to fight inevitable coalition of rebel dukes which will have appeared by then.

Alaric besieged Rome three times in early 5th century because he wanted to be recognized as magister militum by the Emperor there. While Emperor himself was basically powerless militarily by this time, legitimacy and authority gained by long rule of Rome in the West meant that barbarian leaders only had true royal legitimacy if the Roman Emperor recognized them. Visigoths eventually sacked Rome in 410 AD, but this was not the original goal.

Combined Motives

Of course, leaders and states may have more than one motive to start a war. Natural disaster may have led to scarcity of resources. Or perhaps scarcity of resources had made people living in an area warlike, and something happened – a disaster, an ambitious ruler or a new belief system – that made them turn their energies into outward conquest instead of previously typical internal squabbles. Alternatively, historical animosity may be what pushes two states into war over scarce resources, geography or different belief system. Whatever the case, combining motives will help wars feel more realistic, deeper and more immersive.

Conclusions

Wars in fantasy may erupt for any one or multiple of above reasons. But regardless of if it is a Dark Lord attempting to create a utopia by force, or a bunch of enterpreneurs doing business, nobody fights a war for no reason. And the reason behind the war will shape the way war is being fought. This will allow the author to create a compelling and immersive story that will keep readers engaged. Motives of war will also determine the conduct of war as well – an attacker whose motive is merely plunder will come, raid, rape, pillage and plunder, and leave. Attacker whose motive is conquest however will stay to try and besiege towns, resorting to raiding only if outright conquest is not possible (Mongols and Ottomans both did this).

Causes of War for Fantasy Writers

One of major aspects of writing warfare is understanding why people go to war. It is in fact the basic requirement of writing a war: if one does not understand why the war is happening, he will not be able to set coherent goals for factions fighting the war, and thus the war will appear disjointed. No individual or collective, no enemy is simply evil. Everybody does things for a reason, even if some reasons may be difficult to understand for most people. And these reasons determine not just why, but also when, how and how long will wars be waged.

This is necessary, as establishing a believable reason for the conflict helps both the writer and the reader – it helps the writer actually write about the conflict, and it helps the reader understand what is going on and get immersed in it. And these believable reasons and attitudes cannot be based on the current-day understanding of warfare, because said understanding is so different and out of step with ancient and medieval attitudes towards war that including it basically breaches suspension of disbelief all on its own.

Thomas Hobbes said that people go to war for three reasons:

• greed (to take other people’s stuff, claim their territory, etc.)
• fear (to strike others when it seems like you have an advantage, because you’re afraid that when they think they have the advantage, they’ll attack you)
• glory (to show that you are mighty warriors so that others will respect and fear you)

And this is, by and large, correct. It is however an oversimplification, and causes of real war can be varied and complex.

Another aspect of this is that people are morons: they only need to think they have a good reason to go to war.

Greed

Greed is the basic aspect of human being, and it stems from uncertainty about the future. We are programmed to want to gain as much as possible, because future is always uncertain – and in the past, this uncertainty could have meant death. The way to remove uncertainty is to accumulate the necessary resources well beyond the point of bare necessity – thus, greed.

And in premodern times, resources were limited. This limit on resources especially meant that oftentimes the only way to accumulate further resources was to take them by force. And force, when applied on the scale of society, meant war. Warfare for the sake of acquisition of resources has existed since before humans have even evolved. Ants fight wars for access to food, territory or even labor. Chimpanzees too fight real wars in order to conquer territory.

And the reason for war is simple: larger territory means access to greater amount of resources. Greater amount of resources means that there is greater safety margin between what the group needs and what it can extract from the land, therefore enabling the group to more easily survive the lean times. But greater access to resources will (generally) enable the group to grow in size, thus forcing it to expand the territory to maintain the comfortable safety margin. This is not an issue for so long as there is empty territory, but the moment a group runs into another group claiming territory they want to expand to, the result is inevitably war.

And because there is no hard limit on what exactly constitutes the “safety margin”, humans are conditioned to always want more no matter how much they have. Thus tribes start hoarding stuff like ancient dragons gold, only stopping when cost of warfare outweights the benefits.

While the most basic resources to wage war over are fertile land and drinking water, as society becomes more complex, the variety of resources increases. Wars can thus be waged for control of trade routes (e.g. Roman-Persian wars), trade resources (e.g. Anglo-French wars in North America), sources of resources (most importantly gold and salt mines) or simple plunder. Farmland, timberland, ore mines, seaports and trade routes are all good reasons for war.

Even “simple plunder” should not be underestimated as a source of warfare either. For nomadic tribes, plundering neighbours can mean a difference between life and death. Even when people had settled, plunder would still hold the potential to make the leaders and the men rich(er), and was thus a major motivator in warfare. Viking raids for example were carried out for basically no reason other than plunder, even if Vikings themselves did settle in other places.

Leaders may seek to gain power over their own people by making them unite in opposition to an enemy (real or imagined). On the flip side, hostile leaders may attempt to cause internal conflict in the society in order to weaken it, and this can cause civil war. Example of the first is Hitler in 1920s and 1930s, while example of the second are Communist activities in Europe from 1918 to 1991. These caused multiple civil wars and rebellions (Finnish civil war, Spartacist uprising in Germany and so on) which then paved the way for populist anti-Communist leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini due to the fear the Communism had caused – and fear can be a powerful motivator for war, as discussed in the next section.

Fear

Other people’s actions are difficult or impossible to predict, and this is just as true on the level of states as it is on the level of individuals. Thus, in time of slow communication and slow trade, leaders would often operate on the “better safe than sorry” policy. Even as late as 1914, the global conflict began mostly because everybody assumed the worst-case scenario and communication was too slow to resolve issues in time. And the reason why everybody assumed the worst-case scenario is because changes had made leaders uneasy. Changes were many. Economic, political and military rise of Germany and its colonial ambitions caused fear in British, French and Russian leadership. Serbian imperialist ambitions towards Bosnia and Croatia caused unease in multiethnic and unstable Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria wanted to get revenge for its defeats and recapture lost territories. War was only barely avoided several times to finally break out in 1914.

States and leaders always had to be wary of their neighbours’ actions and motives. For this reason, international politics had – all the way from the Stone Age – relied heavily on balance of power. Anything that disrupted that balance of power was seen as a threat. A state growing too powerful could inspire an attack by neghbouring powers, for no reason other than to take it down a peg. Similar scenario could occur internally in a feudal or other aristocratic society.

Another aspect of fear is ideology. This can be a religion or a political ideology – as a matter of fact, political ideology is nothing but secularized religion anyway. People feel comfortable in their beliefs, and thus fear anything that may threaten these beliefs. Human mind is by its nature totalitarian, and it takes training and culture for civilized discussion to be at all possible – even within one’s own mind, let alone with other people. For this reason, wars were often caused by ideologies attempting to expand. Muslim conquests were caused by Islam, and the Fourth Crusade’s capture of Constantinople was heavily assisted by Westerners and Byzantines being unable to really understand each other due to cultural differences. Then there is also Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants in Europe.

And ideology that causes war does not necessarily have to sound or even be evil. If the alternative to accepting said ideology is eternal damnation, then enforcing ideology by force is perfectly reasonable. This is what drove the Muslim conquests, Baltic Crusades, as well as the Soviet invasions of neighbouring states in the 1917 – 1922 period. Historical experience shows that idealism is the most lethal force in human history.

In all cases, cultural incompatibility creates fear and also makes conflict resolution more difficult. Different cultures lead to different mindsets and mentalities, which then can cause people to “speak different languages” even when they are, technically, speaking the same language. This then increases probability of conflict by making peaceful conflict resolution more difficult, and may even prevent any kind of peaceful conflict resolution if cultural values are different enough.

History of past conflicts can also cause feeling of fear and mistrust. If somebody had been a threat for a long time, only a rather stupid person would believe they are suddenly no longer a threat.

Of course, fear can be wholly justified when people’s safety is directly threatened. The root cause then will be somewhere else – specifically whatever is threatening the safety. Good example are barbarian migrations. The root cause in barbarian migrations is still unclear – perhaps Chinese expansion, perhaps something else. Whatever the case, masses of barbarians moved westwards en masse, causing a chain reaction, an avalanche that pushed into the Roman Empire. Unable to absorb so many barbarians so quickly without destroying itself, Roman Empire was forced to respond with force.

Glory and Honor

One basic fact which fantasy writer needs to understand is that modern-day Western understanding of war as terrible was born in the trenches and the horrors of industrialized warfare of the First World War. But the core premise of warfare in many fantasy works (from Lord of the Rings to the A Song of Ice and Fire), namely that war is terrible, would have baffled anybody who had lived before 1914. In earlier times – as late as Napoleon – it was perfectly reasonable for a leader to invade a neigbouring country for the sake of his own glory. Aristotle held that wars between the Greeks were always unjust, but wars between the Greeks and the barbarians were always just.

But in premodern societies, fighting neighbours was the main way of gaining respect and plunder. Respect was not baseless. Societies that develop a warrior class usually (and rightly) look up to them and praise them, as warriors are the guarantee of safety and future of the group. But this admiration also has major implications for the society itself.

For a long time, glory was a major currency in internal politics of a state. Elected leaders especially had to gain recognition before being elected in the first place, but hereditary leaders were not immune to popularity issue either. And the easiest way to gain glory was through conflict.

Roman politics are a quick and easy example of this. Romans during the late Republic were in a state of nearly constant conquest, most of it motivated primarily by internal Roman politics. Successful conquest could easily make a person’s political career. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul is a good example: he not only gained reputation from it, but also used said conquest as propaganda material in his dispatches and eventually the book De Bello Gallico.

Likewise, Cortez and Pizzaro, while greedy for gold, also knew that in the warlike society of Spain they would be admired as conquerors and heroes. This then would lead to gaining prestigious titles and honors.

Importantly however, fighting for honor also served as a way of limiting warfare. Being ready to fight a war over even trivial offenses could in fact reduce likelyhood of a major war, because it signalled to neighbours that one would not be cowed.

Revenge

This is a factor that Hobbes did not mention, and may technically go into “fear” category. Either way, it is a major one – wars are often started as revenge for real or perceived ills. France was overjoyed to go to war against Germany in 1914, as a revenge for its humiliation in the Prusso-French war of 1870. And Hitler’s rise to power was helped by Germany’s humiliation in 1918 – it was no accident that Hitler forced the French to sign their capitulation in 1940 in the same place Germany had signed its surrender in 1918. In the Balkans, Serbian tyranny over Croatia in the 1918 – 1939 period caused creation of the Ustashi movement, which then launched its own tyranny in the 1941 – 1945 period. This was answered by the Chetnik- and Partisan- -waged campaign of tyranny, and Communist Yugoslavia was formed in 1945 on bones of the dead.

The American and French Revolutions were caused by feelings of injustice. People want to believe themselves to be in the right, and it is much easier to defend violence seen as being honorable.

For this reason, if war is going to form a major part of fantasy novel, writer should keep in mind history and previous relationships of combatants as they will affect both causes and the nature of war – that is, the manner in which the war is being waged.

Complex Causes

Most often however, causes will not be this simple. Rather, wars will be started by complex interaction of many factors. For example, while it was technically greed that caused the First World War, Belgium did not need to get involved – but its geographic position on France’s flank meant that Germany attempted to use it as a way to outflank the French Army. This however drew Britain into war, and entrance of Britain helped draw in United States. In the Second World War, Denmark got invaded because it was on the way to Norway.

Conclusion

As can be seen, while reasons for war are very varied, they can still generally fit into Hobbes’ three categories. But it should be kept in mind that reason for war and justification for war are not one and the same. For people to accept war, they need to be emotionally winded – and “we need those mines” is not going to be enough. Thus to justify a war, a mythology needs to be created. Common myths used to justify war include answers to insults (e.g. War of Jenkins’ Ear, which was really about colonies in North America), real or made-up history of past persecution (e.g. Serbs wanting to “liberate fellow Slavs from Habsburg persecution”), real or made-up threat (e.g. Soviet claim of protecting minorities in Poland in 1939), “Manifest Destiny” (e.g. actual “Manifest Destiny”, as well as European colonial powers and USSR claiming to “spread civilization” or in latter case “spread revolution”). Trigger for war can be an insult, an unprovoked incursion (military or otherwise), assassination of a public figure, injustice or something else – but causes for war will always be the four causes that had been noted previously.

Further reading

Exploring the Motives Behind Wars in Fantasy Novels

https://orenlitwin.com/2021/08/08/war-in-fantasy-fiction

Reasons for War in Premodern Societies

Wars do not happen without reason, even if some reasons may seem stupid to modern readers. This is important, because objective of the war also determines the conduct of the war. War whose objective is completely conquering the enemy country will not be fought in the same way as a war whose sole objective is capturing slaves. No country, government or organization is evil simply to be evil – evil people are typically convinced they are doing good! – which means that a war has to have some purpose to achieve. Establishing believable reason for the conflict that drives the story can help in making both the world and the story more internally consistent and immersive.

Scarcity of Resources

Scarcity of resources is a common reason for war. This scarcity does not need to be something critical, though it may be. It could be lack of farming land, or merely attempt to control the lucrative trade route. In Stone Ages, groups of people that ran out of food would take their neighbour’s food. Even in Middle Ages, if one area suffered from bad climactic conditions, solution was often to just go and take neighbours’ food.

Migration

Whenever there is a mass migration, there is a war. Western Roman Empire was destroyed by mass immigration of barbarians, and Mexico lost Texas to mass (and planned) immigration of American settlers. Rome was capable of dealing with different ethnic groups normally – the Empire essentially allowed each group to live as usual, follow their own laws and gods, so long as they paid taxes and obeyed Imperial authorities. But settlement of migratory barbarians placed strain on the system, and while Rome did its best to integrate the newcomers, this proved impossible in the long run. It should be noted here that Western Empire dissolved despite the fact that barbarians generally remained rather loyal to the Emperor – at least on paper.

(Note that this migration itself was caused by expansion of the Chinese Empire. Huns had been raiding China for a long time, until in 400 BC Chinese Emperor got tired of it and directed his generals to chase them away. They did so, which caused a chain reaction of westward migrations by barbarians – with Huns themselves showing up in the west in 400 AD).

Loot and Plunder

Of course, resources need not be scarce for people to want to take neighbour’s resources. In general, the more people have, the more they want. Vikings are a good example of a group whose primary goal was plunder: in fact, name “Viking” itself means simply “raider”. That being said, Vikings did settle elsewhere – see “Land Grab”. It is thus unsurprising that majority of medieval armies – with the exception of the Byzantine and Arab armies – were usually small.

Of course, things could escalate. If a local raid (say, between counties) hit more than one county, then the local war could spread to the next level. And on occasion, this would go up the chain until it involved the entire kingdom.

And this could easily come to place that war would feed itself. In order to defend against the Ottoman expansion as well as opposition from within the kingdom, Matthias Corvinus decided to form a standing mercenary army – first of such type in Europe. But this army was runiously expensive for the resources of the kingdom, and so he was forced to wage basically perpetual wars in order to pay for the army’s upkeep.

In fact, out-of-job mercenaries tended to turn to looting and plunder, becoming in essence well-organized bandit gangs. Best way to deal with the problem was to hire them again and set them loose against one’s enemies.

Slaves

Slaves were another form of loot and plunder – and perhaps one of the earliest forms. Native African tribes used to wage perpetual warfare to enslave each other. This resulted in development of lucrative business when Europeans arrived, with tribes selling captured Africans to European and North American slavers. And while more developed societies such as the Roman Empire rarely waged wars solely for purpose of capturing slaves, slavery as part of motivation as war still should not be discounted.

Land Grab

As authority in feudal system was based on land ownership, taking more land was a big driver in expansion. Otto the First pretty much drove eastwards expansion of the Holy Roman Empire simply to gain more land for his nobles. More importantly, systems with primogeniture mean that all lands go to the eldest son. For younger sons then, the only way to get more land is to conquer it.

Trade

Trade is a major war maker. Trade powers could make war to force other countries to open ports and borders to their trade (famous examples are the Opium Wars). Other times, two countries might fight for control of a particular trade resource, or a trade route. Too many restrictions on trade can cause war as countries seek better economic positions, but too few restrictions also leads to greater probability of war as greater number of potential trade partners reduces bilateral dependance and thus potential cost of waging war.

Geography

Sometimes, a country or a group of people will be attacked because they are located on an important geographical location – see the point about trade routes above. This could also be an important defensive position (e.g. control over a mountain pass), or a potential threat to larger state’s territory their location makes them.

Belief Systems

Religion or political ideology can frequently be a major cause for war. This is most obvious with belief systems which claim to hold universal truths. Historically, monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam had engaged in offensive warfare against unbelievers, either to wipe them out or to convert them to their own religion (Islam being the most obvious offender). Genghis Khan believed it was his destiny to conquer the world for his god, Tengri. In more modern times, secular belief systems which likewise claim to hold existential answers have also caused major wars – obvious examples being communism, nazism and fascism, but also liberalism.

Even when religion or political ideology are not a factor however, cultural differences can still lead to a war. Different beliefs and ways of thinking can cause misunderstandings which may either slowly snowball or suddenly explode into open warfare.

Historical Animosities

Historical animosities are another reason. National mythology often shapes attitudes and even policies. One of major reasons why Hitler could start the Second World War was belief in Germany that country had been betrayed, and also exploited by the victors. And the main reason why ideologies such as Nazism and Fascism were able to spread throughout Europe was the fact that Soviet Union had spent period of 1917 to 1922 invading anybody it could reach (Estonia, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine) and remaining 17 years until 1939 it spent financing various Marxist (Bolshevik) uprisings, revolutionary movements and terrorist groups throughout Europe and wider.

It is important however to understand historical, social and cultural factors which had shaped these animosities, and how they continue to do so in the present.

Historical Claims

Any self-respecting country that loses territory due to enemy invasions is not going to recognize the loss so long as any hope of recovering the territory remains. And this can cause wars. After Western Roman Empire got dissolved by mass immigration of barbarian tribes, Eastern Roman Empire was a natural successor to its claims. At first the East recognized situation on the ground as a de facto reality, but never de iure accepted the loss of the Western Empire. This eventually led to Emperor Justinian attempting to reconquer the West – something he may have succeeded in if not for the Justinianic Plague.

Quest for Glory

Sometimes, wars will be caused merely by people seeking glory. While such motive may seem ridiculous to modern mind, it should not be forgotten that premodern wars were nowhere as destructive as wars of modern times. Back in Antiquity and Middle Ages, war was often seen as a way to gain glory, be it for individual or for the group. In many cases, warfare was almost ritualized. Such honor wars were usually on a much smaller scale than economically or politically caused wars.

Natural Disasters

Volcanoes, hurricanes, but also droughts can leave entire areas uninhabitable. When this happens, a mass exodus ensues. And this exodus can easily take on nature of an invasion (in fact, any large migration is a de facto invasion).

Corrupt Rulers

Rulers or governments (including democratic ones!) can become corrupt and start considering only the interests of a single group or class of people. Once that happens, government may start a war for interests of a particular group or even an individual, or else a rift may open in the country that will lead to a civil war.

Legal Confusion

Wars could easily be caused by legal confusion. Especially feudal legal relations were often complex. For example, after William of Normandy conquered England, he became king of England. But since he was still duke of Normandy, he was technically a vassal to king of France. This was bound to cause trouble. Situation repeated itself later, with Henry V – then King of England – being also the Duke of Aquitaine, and thus bound to swear fealty to the French king.

Succession Struggles

Above would often lead to succession struggles as well. If one kingdom followed inheritance by primogentiure but other had patrilineal inheritance, then a king of one kingdom could easily consider himself to be a king of second kingdom as well, yet be denied. This was the cause of Hundred Years War between England and France, and also why Coloman managed to secure support of Slavonian nobility before attacking southern Croatia (which led to death of king Petar Svačić).

In fact, various legal confusions related to succession were probably the most frequent cause of warfare between kingdoms.

Power Struggles

Barons always looked to restrict power of the monarch, while monarch sought to expand his own powers. While this resulted in something of an equilibrium which allowed greater freedoms, it also meant that king could begin a war simply to redirect barons’ attention elsewhere.

In a feudal system power of the central government also tended to lapse over time. Lack of administration meant that monarch often had to show up in an area in person, with the court essentially travelling the kingdom in a manner of travelling circus. This presence was not always welcome because it was expensive, but expenses were also part of the point – as barons had to host the ruler, they would be too busy planning how to pay the enormous costs which came with the honor to think about rebelling. Further, because authority of the monarch was based on technically land grants, as monarch ran out of land so his authority weakened.

Holy Roman Emperors later on had to wage what were essentially campaigns of conquest in Northern Italy in order to get crowned by the Pope – and then hurry back to Germany to fight inevitable coalition of rebel dukes which will have appeared by then.

Alaric besieged Rome three times in early 5th century because he wanted to be recognized as magister militum by the Emperor there. While Emperor himself was basically powerless militarily by this time, legitimacy and authority gained by long rule of Rome in the West meant that barbarian leaders only had true royal legitimacy if the Roman Emperor recognized them. Visigoths eventually sacked Rome in 410 AD, but this was not the original goal.

Combined Motives

Of course, leaders and states may have more than one motive to start a war. Natural disaster may have led to scarcity of resources. Or perhaps scarcity of resources had made people living in an area warlike, and something happened – a disaster, an ambitious ruler or a new belief system – that made them turn their energies into outward conquest instead of previously typical internal squabbles. Alternatively, historical animosity may be what pushes two states into war over scarce resources, geography or different belief system. Whatever the case, combining motives will help wars feel more realistic, deeper and more immersive.

Conclusions

Wars in fantasy may erupt for any one or multiple of above reasons. But regardless of if it is a Dark Lord attempting to create a utopia by force, or a bunch of enterpreneurs doing business, nobody fights a war for no reason. And the reason behind the war will shape the way war is being fought. This will allow the author to create a compelling and immersive story that will keep readers engaged. Motives of war will also determine the conduct of war as well – an attacker whose motive is merely plunder will come, raid, rape, pillage and plunder, and leave. Attacker whose motive is conquest however will stay to try and besiege towns, resorting to raiding only if outright conquest is not possible (Mongols and Ottomans both did this).

Reasons for War in Premodern Societies

Wars do not happen without reason, even if some reasons may seem stupid to modern readers. This is important, because objective of the war also determines the conduct of the war. War whose objective is completely conquering the enemy country will not be fought in the same way as a war whose sole objective is capturing slaves. No country, government or organization is evil simply to be evil – evil people are typically convinced they are doing good! – which means that a war has to have some purpose to achieve. Establishing believable reason for the conflict that drives the story can help in making both the world and the story more internally consistent and immersive.

Scarcity of Resources

Scarcity of resources is a common reason for war. This scarcity does not need to be something critical, though it may be. It could be lack of farming land, or merely attempt to control the lucrative trade route. In Stone Ages, groups of people that ran out of food would take their neighbour’s food. Even in Middle Ages, if one area suffered from bad climactic conditions, solution was often to just go and take neighbours’ food.

Migration

Whenever there is a mass migration, there is a war. Western Roman Empire was destroyed by mass immigration of barbarians, and Mexico lost Texas to mass (and planned) immigration of American settlers. Rome was capable of dealing with different ethnic groups normally – the Empire essentially allowed each group to live as usual, follow their own laws and gods, so long as they paid taxes and obeyed Imperial authorities. But settlement of migratory barbarians placed strain on the system, and while Rome did its best to integrate the newcomers, this proved impossible in the long run. It should be noted here that Western Empire dissolved despite the fact that barbarians generally remained rather loyal to the Emperor – at least on paper.

(Note that this migration itself was caused by expansion of the Chinese Empire. Huns had been raiding China for a long time, until in 400 BC Chinese Emperor got tired of it and directed his generals to chase them away. They did so, which caused a chain reaction of westward migrations by barbarians – with Huns themselves showing up in the west in 400 AD).

Loot and Plunder

Of course, resources need not be scarce for people to want to take neighbour’s resources. In general, the more people have, the more they want. Vikings are a good example of a group whose primary goal was plunder: in fact, name “Viking” itself means simply “raider”. That being said, Vikings did settle elsewhere – see “Land Grab”. It is thus unsurprising that majority of medieval armies – with the exception of the Byzantine and Arab armies – were usually small.

Of course, things could escalate. If a local raid (say, between counties) hit more than one county, then the local war could spread to the next level. And on occasion, this would go up the chain until it involved the entire kingdom.

And this could easily come to place that war would feed itself. In order to defend against the Ottoman expansion as well as opposition from within the kingdom, Matthias Corvinus decided to form a standing mercenary army – first of such type in Europe. But this army was runiously expensive for the resources of the kingdom, and so he was forced to wage basically perpetual wars in order to pay for the army’s upkeep.

In fact, out-of-job mercenaries tended to turn to looting and plunder, becoming in essence well-organized bandit gangs. Best way to deal with the problem was to hire them again and set them loose against one’s enemies.

Slaves

Slaves were another form of loot and plunder – and perhaps one of the earliest forms. Native African tribes used to wage perpetual warfare to enslave each other. This resulted in development of lucrative business when Europeans arrived, with tribes selling captured Africans to European and North American slavers. And while more developed societies such as the Roman Empire rarely waged wars solely for purpose of capturing slaves, slavery as part of motivation as war still should not be discounted.

Land Grab

As authority in feudal system was based on land ownership, taking more land was a big driver in expansion. Otto the First pretty much drove eastwards expansion of the Holy Roman Empire simply to gain more land for his nobles. More importantly, systems with primogeniture mean that all lands go to the eldest son. For younger sons then, the only way to get more land is to conquer it.

Trade

Trade is a major war maker. Trade powers could make war to force other countries to open ports and borders to their trade (famous examples are the Opium Wars). Other times, two countries might fight for control of a particular trade resource, or a trade route. Too many restrictions on trade can cause war as countries seek better economic positions, but too few restrictions also leads to greater probability of war as greater number of potential trade partners reduces bilateral dependance and thus potential cost of waging war.

Geography

Sometimes, a country or a group of people will be attacked because they are located on an important geographical location – see the point about trade routes above. This could also be an important defensive position (e.g. control over a mountain pass), or a potential threat to larger state’s territory their location makes them.

Belief Systems

Religion or political ideology can frequently be a major cause for war. This is most obvious with belief systems which claim to hold universal truths. Historically, monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam had engaged in offensive warfare against unbelievers, either to wipe them out or to convert them to their own religion (Islam being the most obvious offender). Genghis Khan believed it was his destiny to conquer the world for his god, Tengri. In more modern times, secular belief systems which likewise claim to hold existential answers have also caused major wars – obvious examples being communism, nazism and fascism, but also liberalism.

Even when religion or political ideology are not a factor however, cultural differences can still lead to a war. Different beliefs and ways of thinking can cause misunderstandings which may either slowly snowball or suddenly explode into open warfare.

Historical Animosities

Historical animosities are another reason. National mythology often shapes attitudes and even policies. One of major reasons why Hitler could start the Second World War was belief in Germany that country had been betrayed, and also exploited by the victors. And the main reason why ideologies such as Nazism and Fascism were able to spread throughout Europe was the fact that Soviet Union had spent period of 1917 to 1922 invading anybody it could reach (Estonia, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine) and remaining 17 years until 1939 it spent financing various Marxist (Bolshevik) uprisings, revolutionary movements and terrorist groups throughout Europe and wider.

It is important however to understand historical, social and cultural factors which had shaped these animosities, and how they continue to do so in the present.

Historical Claims

Any self-respecting country that loses territory due to enemy invasions is not going to recognize the loss so long as any hope of recovering the territory remains. And this can cause wars. After Western Roman Empire got dissolved by mass immigration of barbarian tribes, Eastern Roman Empire was a natural successor to its claims. At first the East recognized situation on the ground as a de facto reality, but never de iure accepted the loss of the Western Empire. This eventually led to Emperor Justinian attempting to reconquer the West – something he may have succeeded in if not for the Justinianic Plague.

Quest for Glory

Sometimes, wars will be caused merely by people seeking glory. While such motive may seem ridiculous to modern mind, it should not be forgotten that premodern wars were nowhere as destructive as wars of modern times. Back in Antiquity and Middle Ages, war was often seen as a way to gain glory, be it for individual or for the group. In many cases, warfare was almost ritualized. Such honor wars were usually on a much smaller scale than economically or politically caused wars.

Natural Disasters

Volcanoes, hurricanes, but also droughts can leave entire areas uninhabitable. When this happens, a mass exodus ensues. And this exodus can easily take on nature of an invasion (in fact, any large migration is a de facto invasion).

Corrupt Rulers

Rulers or governments (including democratic ones!) can become corrupt and start considering only the interests of a single group or class of people. Once that happens, government may start a war for interests of a particular group or even an individual, or else a rift may open in the country that will lead to a civil war.

Legal Confusion

Wars could easily be caused by legal confusion. Especially feudal legal relations were often complex. For example, after William of Normandy conquered England, he became king of England. But since he was still duke of Normandy, he was technically a vassal to king of France. This was bound to cause trouble. Situation repeated itself later, with Henry V – then King of England – being also the Duke of Aquitaine, and thus bound to swear fealty to the French king.

Succession Struggles

Above would often lead to succession struggles as well. If one kingdom followed inheritance by primogentiure but other had patrilineal inheritance, then a king of one kingdom could easily consider himself to be a king of second kingdom as well, yet be denied. This was the cause of Hundred Years War between England and France, and also why Coloman managed to secure support of Slavonian nobility before attacking southern Croatia (which led to death of king Petar Svačić).

In fact, various legal confusions related to succession were probably the most frequent cause of warfare between kingdoms.

Power Struggles

Barons always looked to restrict power of the monarch, while monarch sought to expand his own powers. While this resulted in something of an equilibrium which allowed greater freedoms, it also meant that king could begin a war simply to redirect barons’ attention elsewhere.

In a feudal system power of the central government also tended to lapse over time. Lack of administration meant that monarch often had to show up in an area in person, with the court essentially travelling the kingdom in a manner of travelling circus. This presence was not always welcome because it was expensive, but expenses were also part of the point – as barons had to host the ruler, they would be too busy planning how to pay the enormous costs which came with the honor to think about rebelling. Further, because authority of the monarch was based on technically land grants, as monarch ran out of land so his authority weakened.

Holy Roman Emperors later on had to wage what were essentially campaigns of conquest in Northern Italy in order to get crowned by the Pope – and then hurry back to Germany to fight inevitable coalition of rebel dukes which will have appeared by then.

Alaric besieged Rome three times in early 5th century because he wanted to be recognized as magister militum by the Emperor there. While Emperor himself was basically powerless militarily by this time, legitimacy and authority gained by long rule of Rome in the West meant that barbarian leaders only had true royal legitimacy if the Roman Emperor recognized them. Visigoths eventually sacked Rome in 410 AD, but this was not the original goal.

Combined Motives

Of course, leaders and states may have more than one motive to start a war. Natural disaster may have led to scarcity of resources. Or perhaps scarcity of resources had made people living in an area warlike, and something happened – a disaster, an ambitious ruler or a new belief system – that made them turn their energies into outward conquest instead of previously typical internal squabbles. Alternatively, historical animosity may be what pushes two states into war over scarce resources, geography or different belief system. Whatever the case, combining motives will help wars feel more realistic, deeper and more immersive.

Conclusions

Wars in fantasy may erupt for any one or multiple of above reasons. But regardless of if it is a Dark Lord attempting to create a utopia by force, or a bunch of enterpreneurs doing business, nobody fights a war for no reason. And the reason behind the war will shape the way war is being fought. This will allow the author to create a compelling and immersive story that will keep readers engaged. Motives of war will also determine the conduct of war as well – an attacker whose motive is merely plunder will come, raid, rape, pillage and plunder, and leave. Attacker whose motive is conquest however will stay to try and besiege towns, resorting to raiding only if outright conquest is not possible (Mongols and Ottomans both did this).

From ancient China to medieval Europe, the crossbow reshaped warfare. Cheap, deadly, and revolutionary, it armed common soldiers, inspired the repeating design, and survived until gunpowder finally ended its dominance.
#Crossbow #AncientWeapons #HistoryShorts #China 🇨🇳 #TerracottaArmy #MedievalWarfare #WarHistory #AncientHistory #Storytelling #DidYouKnow #HistoryFacts #DocumentaryShort #WeirdHistory

From ancient China to medieval Europe, the crossbow reshaped warfare. Cheap, deadly, and revolutionary, it armed common soldiers, inspired the repeating design, and survived until gunpowder finally ended its dominance.
#Crossbow #AncientWeapons #HistoryShorts #China 🇨🇳 #TerracottaArmy #MedievalWarfare #WarHistory #AncientHistory #Storytelling #DidYouKnow #HistoryFacts #DocumentaryShort #WeirdHistory

From ancient China to medieval Europe, the crossbow reshaped warfare. Cheap, deadly, and revolutionary, it armed common soldiers, inspired the repeating design, and survived until gunpowder finally ended its dominance.
#Crossbow #AncientWeapons #HistoryShorts #China 🇨🇳 #TerracottaArmy #MedievalWarfare #WarHistory #AncientHistory #Storytelling #DidYouKnow #HistoryFacts #DocumentaryShort #WeirdHistory

From ancient China to medieval Europe, the crossbow reshaped warfare. Cheap, deadly, and revolutionary, it armed common soldiers, inspired the repeating design, and survived until gunpowder finally ended its dominance.
#Crossbow #AncientWeapons #HistoryShorts #China 🇨🇳 #TerracottaArmy #MedievalWarfare #WarHistory #AncientHistory #Storytelling #DidYouKnow #HistoryFacts #DocumentaryShort #WeirdHistory

🎬Fans of GOT, The Last Duel ou The King ??
Take part in my survey on the representation of the Middle Ages on screen !
📌 https://sphinxdeclic.com/tiny/a/4o52qhwh
#Medieval #MoyenAge #MiddleAges #Cinema #Film #MedievalCinema #HistoricalMovies #MedievalFilms #GameOfThrones #HouseOfTheDragon #TheLastDuel #TheKing #Chevaliers #Knights #Guerriers #Warriors #Reines #Queens #WomenInHistory #FemmesDePouvoir #MedievalWarfare #HistoryNerd #CostumeHistorique #HistoricalCostume #MedievalFantasy #Fantasy #SeriesTV #TVSeries

🎬Fans of GOT, The Last Duel ou The King ??
Take part in my survey on the representation of the Middle Ages on screen !
📌 https://sphinxdeclic.com/tiny/a/4o52qhwh
#Medieval #MoyenAge #MiddleAges #Cinema #Film #MedievalCinema #HistoricalMovies #MedievalFilms #GameOfThrones #HouseOfTheDragon #TheLastDuel #TheKing #Chevaliers #Knights #Guerriers #Warriors #Reines #Queens #WomenInHistory #FemmesDePouvoir #MedievalWarfare #HistoryNerd #CostumeHistorique #HistoricalCostume #MedievalFantasy #Fantasy #SeriesTV #TVSeries

🎬Fans of GOT, The Last Duel ou The King ??
Take part in my survey on the representation of the Middle Ages on screen !
📌 https://sphinxdeclic.com/tiny/a/4o52qhwh
#Medieval #MoyenAge #MiddleAges #Cinema #Film #MedievalCinema #HistoricalMovies #MedievalFilms #GameOfThrones #HouseOfTheDragon #TheLastDuel #TheKing #Chevaliers #Knights #Guerriers #Warriors #Reines #Queens #WomenInHistory #FemmesDePouvoir #MedievalWarfare #HistoryNerd #CostumeHistorique #HistoricalCostume #MedievalFantasy #Fantasy #SeriesTV #TVSeries

The Battle of Courtrai (1302) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/nCk8Y3caJkk?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Courtrai (1302) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/nCk8Y3caJkk?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Courtrai (1302) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/nCk8Y3caJkk?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Courtrai (1302) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/nCk8Y3caJkk?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Courtrai (1302) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/nCk8Y3caJkk?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

Step into 1066 and explore the battles, politics, and impact of the Norman Conquest! https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/norman-conquest #medievalwarfare

Step into 1066 and explore the battles, politics, and impact of the Norman Conquest! https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/norman-conquest #medievalwarfare

Step into 1066 and explore the battles, politics, and impact of the Norman Conquest! https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/norman-conquest #medievalwarfare

Step into 1066 and explore the battles, politics, and impact of the Norman Conquest! https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/norman-conquest #medievalwarfare

Step into 1066 and explore the battles, politics, and impact of the Norman Conquest! https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/norman-conquest #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/bC4JVKZB5KA?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/bC4JVKZB5KA?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/bC4JVKZB5KA?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/bC4JVKZB5KA?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/It5DX_I0vPE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/It5DX_I0vPE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/It5DX_I0vPE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/It5DX_I0vPE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

What was the size of medieval armies? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/eLbetGc4-b8?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

What was the size of medieval armies? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/eLbetGc4-b8?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

What was the size of medieval armies? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/eLbetGc4-b8?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

What was the size of medieval armies? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/eLbetGc4-b8?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

Explore the art of battle in the Middle Ages—join our medieval warfare course now! 🛡️🔥https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/warfare #MedievalWarfare #MilitaryHistory #MedievalStudies #LearnHistory #HistoryLovers #Medieval #History #Education

Explore the art of battle in the Middle Ages—join our medieval warfare course now! 🛡️🔥https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/warfare #MedievalWarfare #MilitaryHistory #MedievalStudies #LearnHistory #HistoryLovers #Medieval #History #Education

Explore the art of battle in the Middle Ages—join our medieval warfare course now! 🛡️🔥https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/warfare #MedievalWarfare #MilitaryHistory #MedievalStudies #LearnHistory #HistoryLovers #Medieval #History #Education

Explore the art of battle in the Middle Ages—join our medieval warfare course now! 🛡️🔥https://medievalstudies.thinkific.com/courses/warfare #MedievalWarfare #MilitaryHistory #MedievalStudies #LearnHistory #HistoryLovers #Medieval #History #Education

The Battle of Nicopolis (1396) - an episode of Bow and Blade #medievalwarfare https://youtu.be/9XwuVLybOjE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Nicopolis (1396) - an episode of Bow and Blade #medievalwarfare https://youtu.be/9XwuVLybOjE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Nicopolis (1396) - an episode of Bow and Blade #medievalwarfare https://youtu.be/9XwuVLybOjE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Nicopolis (1396) - an episode of Bow and Blade #medievalwarfare https://youtu.be/9XwuVLybOjE?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Crécy (1346) – Part 2 - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/yyKrbT2x09E?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Crécy (1346) – Part 2 - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/yyKrbT2x09E?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Crécy (1346) – Part 2 - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/yyKrbT2x09E?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Crécy (1346) – Part 2 - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/yyKrbT2x09E?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

How was the Knightly Cavalry Charge used in Battle? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/4nKlgAEbWfo?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

How was the Knightly Cavalry Charge used in Battle? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/4nKlgAEbWfo?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

How was the Knightly Cavalry Charge used in Battle? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/4nKlgAEbWfo?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

How was the Knightly Cavalry Charge used in Battle? - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/4nKlgAEbWfo?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Siege of Rhodes (1480) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y_wc3c3yv88?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Siege of Rhodes (1480) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y_wc3c3yv88?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Siege of Rhodes (1480) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y_wc3c3yv88?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Siege of Rhodes (1480) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y_wc3c3yv88?feature=shared #medievalwarfare

The Battle of Brunanburh (937) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/g1HLF0jRXE0?feature=shared #MedievalWarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast

The Battle of Brunanburh (937) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/g1HLF0jRXE0?feature=shared #MedievalWarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast

The Battle of Brunanburh (937) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/g1HLF0jRXE0?feature=shared #MedievalWarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast

The Battle of Brunanburh (937) - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/g1HLF0jRXE0?feature=shared #MedievalWarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast

Battle of Hastings, 1066: Analysis of the Norman victory - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y2cDI_cIsc4?feature=shared #medievalwarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast

Battle of Hastings, 1066: Analysis of the Norman victory - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y2cDI_cIsc4?feature=shared #medievalwarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast

Battle of Hastings, 1066: Analysis of the Norman victory - an episode of Bow and Blade https://youtu.be/y2cDI_cIsc4?feature=shared #medievalwarfare #historypodcast #medievalpodcast