The Personal Touch

by Dave Millward

 

Whilst reading a recently acquired copy of Carlyle's Frederick the Great, I came across the following passage of Carlyle's notes on Henry the Fowler, arguably the earliest King of all Germany (916-936AD.):

 

These were Henry's six Markgraviates and in this way he had militia captains ranked all round his borders, against the intrusive Sclavic element.

He fortified Towns; all Towns are to be walled and warded, to be Burgs in fact; and the inhabitants Burghers, or men capable of defending Burgs. Everywhere the ninth man is to serve as soldier in his Town; other eight in the country are to feed and support him:

Heergerathe (\war-tackle, what is called Heriot in our old Books) descends to the eldest son of a fighting man who had served, as with us.

'''All robbers are made soldiers" (unless they prefer hanging); and weaponshows and drill are kept up. This is a man who will make some impression upon Anarchy and its Wends and Huns. His standard was St. Michael as we have seen whose sword is derived from a very high quarter !

This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, marked Places, or Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of circumstances. It did not quite originate with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his Graf (Count, Reeve, Greeve, whom some think to be only Grau, Gray, or Senior; the hardiest, wisest steelgray man he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing watch and ward there the post of difficulty. of peril, and naturally of honour too...

 

What interested me, apart from Carlyle's obvious admiration of Henry, was the effect he had on the Military forces under his command... weaponshows and drill are kept up and Everywhere the ninth man is to serve as soldier in his Town; other eight in the country are to feed and support him: This is a man who made things happen militarily. He didn't invent the Military system, or greatly change it, but he made it effective. And that's my main point here. In the days before truly Regular Armies, backed by state arsenals and an effective beaurocracy; barracks and printed drill books and all the other things that define a Regular, the impact of a Leader on the Army he commanded, was all the greater.

By the middle of his reign his Army was constantly in service and composed of veterans of a series of successful campaigns. This continued into the reign of his son Otto the Great. And yet, traditionally in Wargaming these men are regarded universally as Irregulars. My argument is simply that these Milites, Knechte or whatever you wish to call them are likely to have evinced far more the air and behaviour of Regulars than many automatically regarded as Regular because they are part of an Army we have come to think of as being a Regular Army. For instance, similar contemporary mounted troops of the Byzantine Army, Thematic Kavallerioi are generally thought of as Regular, despite being described in DBM Army Lists as part-time territorial. A good general, like John Tzimisces might weld them into a formidable and biddable fighting force. However, under less inspirational leadership, the day to day situation, they were simply a herd-like militia mob. Whereas Henry's Milites (yes the Wargames despised Bavarians too) were a well disciplined higfhly effective Army.

Drill books which had to be hand written were never universally available and certainly were not standard issue. They don't make a Regular Army. Nor do uniforms, particularly if rarely issued by a State whose beaurocracy has failed, like the Later Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire (Rhomanioi). In the pre-printing era, periods of efficiency for an Army coincide with the rigorous enforcement of Standards not tokens like the fact that someone wrote a theoretical drill book. And these periods are those of the dominance of key individual, a General or King/Emperor. Seven hundred years after Henry the Fowler and John Tzimisces with three hundred years of printing to work with, the French Army of Louis XV couldn't agree on a standard drill book, never mind carry out consistent drill, so how can we expect a Byzantine frontier force, say in Italy, to opperate in the way prescribed by Leo's Tactica.

No, Leo the Wise might well have ensured that his Tactica was observed, in those areas he had direct access to and by his personal troops. Similarly, an energetic General like Tzimisces or Emperor like Nikephorus may well have instilled their own troops with a similar oprganisational effectiveness. However to ascribe this as a widespread characteristic of Byzantine Armies in general would, in my opinion be a mistake. Henry's Saxons seem to me to be a better bet for discipline than the Thematic levy of Souhern Italy or the Balkans.

To end with more of Carlyle's Henry...

He subdued his Dukes, Schwaben, Baiern (Swabia, Bavaria) and others, who were getting too hereditary, and inclined to disobedience. He managed to get back Lorraine; made truce with the Hungarians, who were excessively invasive at that time. Truce with the Hungarians ; and then, having gathered strength, made dreadful beating of them; two beatings,-one to each half for the invasive Savagery had split itself, for better chance of plunder; first beating was at Sondershausen, second was at Mersehurg, year 933; -which settled them considerably. Another beating from Henry's son, and they never came hack. Beat Wends…Beat Sclavic Meisseners (Misnians); Bohemian Czechs, and took Prague; Wends again, with huge slaughter; then Danes, and made ''King Worm tributary" (King Gorm the Hard, our King Canute's great-grandfather, Year 931) ;-last of all, these invasive Hungarians as above. had sent the Hungarians, when they demanded tribute or blackmail of him, -a mangy hound: There is your blackmail Sir make much of that...

Return to Wargames Forum    Return to the Library