Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience

I read this book for a graduate course in medieval history. Michael Prestwich is a great historian of the Middle Ages. "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience" is a great comprehensive work for warfare of the period. It is especially useful for battle descriptions of English wars against the Scottish, and for the Hundred Years War. Prestwich writes that the lesson of the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, was clear for any competent military commander to follow; cavalry alone could not defeat the Scottish squares, but archers supported by cavalry could easily break them. These tactics would be successfully repeated by Edward III against the Scots at Hallidon Hill in 1333, and Neville's Cross in 1346, not to mention in his invasion of France Edward I's most important contribution to advancing the war fighting capability of Britain was in the battlefield tactics that he employed. It cannot be stressed enough that his use of mixed cavalry and archery was a monumental leap in battlefield tactics, as well as the precursor in making the longbow a force multiplier during the Hundred Years' War. The military record of Edward II, who reigned from 1307-1327, was abysmal. Prestwich spoke on behalf of all historians who wrote about Edward II's lack of military prowess, and was justifiably unflattering in his critique of Edward II's military acumen. Most of what Edward I won on the battlefields in Scotland, Edward II ineptly lost. Edward III's strategic and tactical abilities were on full display during the Hundred Years' War. One of the most important tactical innovations that Edward III instituted to increase the fighting capability of the English army before the start of the Hundred Years' War was the introduction of mounted archers to its ranks. Prestwich took notice of the importance of Edward III's tactical innovation. Mounted archers rode ponies for quick transport to the battlefield, and then they would dismount to shoot their longbows in battle. Undoubtedly, Edward III learned from the previous one hundred years of his predecessors' fighting the Scottish, that too many times the Scots outmaneuvered the English; thus, they escaped from having to fight a battle advantageous to the English. Edward III was going to do all he could to make sure that this did not happen to his army. Oman's research shows muster records from 1334 listing mounted archers for the first time as part of Edward III's expedition into Scotland. This was Edward III's second largest campaign against an enemy during his reign. The expedition served as an excellent opportunity for Edward III and his army to prove their new tactics, which they would put to good use a dozen years later in France. The requirement on localities to provide longbow men with weapons was very demanding. Edward III made great strides to take on the fiscal responsibility of equipping his army. This actually provided him with two advantages--that of quality control of weaponry

I read this book for a graduate course in medieval history. Michael Prestwich is a great historian of the Middle Ages. "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience" is a great comprehensive work for warfare of the period. It is especially useful for battle descriptions of English wars against the Scottish, and for the Hundred Years War. Prestwich writes that the lesson of the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, was clear for any competent military commander to follow; cavalry alone could not defeat the Scottish squares, but archers supported by cavalry could easily break them. These tactics would be successfully repeated by Edward III against the Scots at Hallidon Hill in 1333, and Neville's Cross in 1346, not to mention in his invasion of France Edward I's most important contribution to advancing the war fighting capability of Britain was in the battlefield tactics that he employed. It cannot be stressed enough that his use of mixed cavalry and archery was a monumental leap in battlefield tactics, as well as the precursor in making the longbow a force multiplier during the Hundred Years' War. The military record of Edward II, who reigned from 1307-1327, was abysmal. Prestwich spoke on behalf of all historians who wrote about Edward II's lack of military prowess, and was justifiably unflattering in his critique of Edward II's military acumen. Most of what Edward I won on the battlefields in Scotland, Edward II ineptly lost. Edward III's strategic and tactical abilities were on full display during the Hundred Years' War. One of the most important tactical innovations that Edward III instituted to increase the fighting capability of the English army before the start of the Hundred Years' War was the introduction of mounted archers to its ranks. Prestwich took notice of the importance of Edward III's tactical innovation. Mounted archers rode ponies for quick transport to the battlefield, and then they would dismount to shoot their longbows in battle. Undoubtedly, Edward III learned from the previous one hundred years of his predecessors' fighting the Scottish, that too many times the Scots outmaneuvered the English; thus, they escaped from having to fight a battle advantageous to the English. Edward III was going to do all he could to make sure that this did not happen to his army. Oman's research shows muster records from 1334 listing mounted archers for the first time as part of Edward III's expedition into Scotland. This was Edward III's second largest campaign against an enemy during his reign. The expedition served as an excellent opportunity for Edward III and his army to prove their new tactics, which they would put to good use a dozen years later in France. The requirement on localities to provide longbow men with weapons was very demanding. Edward III made great strides to take on the fiscal responsibility of equipping his army. This actually provided him with two advantages--that of quality control of weaponry

As a specialist in late-medieval English military history ( & author of a book on Edward III's military strategy), I can say with confidence that Michael Prestwich's survey of English medieval military history is one of high quality. It is well written, and contains a nice blend of "war and society" and "sharp end" styles of military history. The level of scholarship is high enough that even specialists will learn from reading it, yet general readers will not find the book beyond their reach.