HH381 FINAL
EXAMINATION STUDY SHEET (1330, Dec 21, 2009)
HH381: War in Medieval
YOU WILL HAVE A CHOICE OF ONE OF
TWO OPTIONS:
OPTION
A: two essays covering between them all four historical periods.
OPTION B: one comprehensive essay
covering all four historical periods.
HISTORICAL ERAS/TOPICS for the the exam essay(s)
1. Late Roman and early
medieval warfare (c.330-c.1050)
2. High Middle Ages: European warfare (c.
1050-c.1300)
3. Crusading warfare
4. Late Middle Ages: Hundred Years'
War (14th and 15th centuries)
OPTION A: Instructions (read carefully)
Choose TWO of the topics below and write essays on them.
Each essay must compare military history in TWO historical periods, and between
the two essays you MUST cover all FOUR
of the above historical periods.
OPTION B: Instructions (read carefully)
Write a comprehensive essay on ONE of the
below topics in which you cover all FOUR of the following historical
periods.
GRADING CRITERIA (read
carefully). Your essays will be graded on the basis of
1) your demonstrated mastery of concepts, interpretations, and factual
material in the readings;
2) the clarity, persuasiveness, and coherency of the essay's argument;
3) your ability to substantiate generalizations,
assertions, and conclusions with evidence (i.e. specific
examples, including names and DATES) drawn from the assigned
reading and lectures; 4) coverage
of the essay question (whether you addressed all parts of it).
Make your points clearly, cite relevant factual
information, and always be as specific as your knowledge permits. I
expect to see demonstrated knowledge of specific names, dates, and strategic
geography in your essays. The
French knight Geoffrey of Charny wrote in his Book of Chivalry (ca.
1350) 'he who does more, is of greater worth.' I feel the same way about
grades. Demonstrate to me what you have learned this semester.
TOPICS FOR OPTIONS A & B. For
"historical eras" see top of the exam. At least
FOUR of the following topics (including #3 below) will appear on the final
exam.
1) [YOU MAY CHOOSE THIS ONLY IF YOU ARE DOING OPTION B, THE COMPREHENSIVE ESSAY.]
Historian Bernard Bachrach argues for continuity in military institutions and practices from the Late Roman Empire through the middle ages. He expresses this view in his article “Medieval Siege Warfare: A Reconnaisance”:
Medievalists with little or no research
experience in military history, like military historians who specialize in
periods other than the Middle Ages, are wont to use
"the art of war" as one important means of distinguishing the
medieval from the Roman world. [What
follows is Bachrach’s ‘straw man’] The
Roman military is seen to be characterized by the phalanx of heavily armed and
rigidly disciplined infantry organized into legions of six thousand effectives
and recruited from among the lower classes of the empire. By contrast, the
medieval military is seen to be dominated by heavily armed cavalry, i.e.,
"knights," who are believed by and large to have been drawn from the
upper classes of society and are depicted as fighting much as they pleased in
search of wealth, honor, and personal aggrandizement. … [T]he Roman
legion represents public power while the medieval knight--the vassal who holds
a fief from his lord--represents government as a private possession of the
nobility. In addition, the medieval knight putatively provides the key to
understanding a highly individualistic "chivalric" mentality which
allegedly dominated not only the military but also the social life of the upper
classes in the Middle Ages. By contrast, the Roman legionary is seen
merely as one more anonymous marker in a highly bureaucratized society. [Now comes Bachrach’s
own views] These models are nonsense and should be scrupulously
avoided--especially in textbooks and general education courses, not to mention
scholarly research. …
[Once
again Bachrach states and then dismisses the
“straw man”] Knights, heavy cavalry, isolated motte and bailey towers dominating a lawless countryside,
small numbers of effectives, as well as a serious lack of training, discipline,
and unit cohesion must be swept away
as the dominant themes. Continuity from
the later Roman Empire through the Middle Ages is the proper focus. The
medieval world was dominated by imperial military topography [i.e. massive fortified cities and lesser
fortifications], antique military science [i.e. Vegetius], and the militarization of the vast majority of the
able-bodied male population.
Another
historian we have studied this semester, John Gillingham,
advances the thesis that a particular approach to warfare, which he terms
“the Vegetian Strategy,” was dominant
from the eleventh through the fifteenth century.
Essay question: Based on the assigned readings for this
course assess the validity of each of these historical theses. In doing so explain whether you see them as
competitive or complementary. In evaluating with Bachrach’s
thesis, assess whether medieval warfare is marked by essential continuity over
time that connects it with Late Roman practice, or whether medieval warfare
broke with Roman practice and developed into something different because of
fundamental changes in organization, institutions, values, technology,
etc. If you do find a break, when and
why did it occur? If you do find
similarities between Late Roman imperial and medieval military practice and
institutions, what besides “continuity” might account for it? In
evaluating Gillingham, test whether his model fits
early and late medieval warfare and Crusading warfare as well as it does
warfare in
2. [YOU MAY CHOOSE THIS ONLY IF YOU ARE DOING OPTION B, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ESSAY.]
Based on your assigned readings for this
course, is it more proper to think in terms of “medieval warfare”
or “medieval warfares”? Explain and
justify your answer. (In approaching this topic, you should take into account
regional differences as well as chronological developments.) If you choose the latter formulation, is
there anything specifically “medieval” that connects the practice
and institutions of warfare throughout the four historical periods we studied?
If you choose the former, why did the practice and institutions of warfare
remain substantially unchanged throughout the Middle
Ages?
3) There are at
least two ways of understanding the history of war. The first is a “scientific”
model of war that emphasizes unchanging principles of strategic conduct and
inherent military probability. According to this model, regardless of the era
or society, war is a rational endeavor carried out according to tactical and
strategic pragmatic necessities and directed at achieving the goals of a state.
This approach also puts a priority on the material factors in war, in
particular technological determinacy, and tests what the historical sources claim to have happened against what
we know to be physiologically or technically possible, or, in some cases,
militarily sensible. If the details
recorded in even an authentic primary source fail this test, or stretch
credibility, then they are to be rejected and material reality upheld.
Others
contend that war is a cultural activity: the reasons why societies engage in
war and the methods by which they fight them are defined by the particular
norms, values, institutions, and mentalities of a society passed on from one
generation to the next that defines that group as an entity. What we call the “unchanging principles
of war” are themselves a cultural construct derived from a particular
approach to war and a particular organization of the state characteristic of
the West from the late eighteenth-century to the present. We may call this the ‘culturalist’ approach.
Essay topic: Based
on your assigned readings and class lectures, evaluate which of the above
interpretations, “scientific” or “culturalist,”
better explains the manner in which warfare was waged and the reasons for going
to war in TWO [all four if you are doing Option B] of the above historical
periods. In doing so, describe fully how warfare was conducted,
who fought, and why in the eras under discussion. You need not answer this
as either/or. In the wars that you analyze you may find elements of each to be
true.
4) Analyze fully and compare
the generalship of representative military leaders from TWO [all four if you are doing Option B] of the above four historical
periods. In doing so, examine their
logistics, tactics, and strategy; the nature of the forces they led and opposed;
their reasons for fighting, and their relationship to the state.
What was
distinctive about the way in which each of these military-leaders waged war and
what does this tell us about the relationship between culture, political and
military institutions, individual genius, and the art of war? What does it
reveal about the differences between the conceptions and practice of military
command in these two periods?
5) Examine the role played by logistics (i.e. supply of troops) and the 'unromantic' aspects of warfare (e.g. recruitment, transportation of troops, discipline and training of troops) in shaping the generalship of (i.e. strategy and tactics) and the manner in which war was fought in TWO [all four if you are doing Option B] of the above historical periods.
6) Assess the
influence of culture, political policy, and practical military necessity upon
why and how wars were from TWO [all four if you are doing
Option B] of the above four historical eras. In your
analysis you should consider the relationship between a state’s
“political policy” and that society’s culture. [By
“culture” I mean the particular norms, values, institutions,
rituals, and mentalities of a society passed on from one generation to the
next.]
7) Describe the role played by changes in societal and political organization, technological innovation, and the actions of 'great men' in the evolution of the art of war and the manner in which war has been fought in TWO [all four if you are doing Option B] historical eras we studied this semester. How did these three factors interact with each other? Justify your answer, using specific historical evidence.
8) [YOU MAY CHOOSE THIS ONLY IF YOU ARE DOING OPTION A.] For EACH of the TWO historical periods not covered in the essay you wrote, choose and identify FOUR individuals or events—that is, eight identifications in all—that you deem significant for the study of military history. To receive full credit your identifications must explain all of the following about the subject:
a. Who or what he or it was
b. When he lived or it occurred (this means providing dates)
c. Where he lived or it occurred (locate as specifically as you your knowledge permits)
d. What his or its significance for the study of military history is.
Identifications that fail to address “d” will receive a grade no better than C, so do not choose this option unless you have thought about how the person or event you identify helped shape military practice or thought in the Middle Ages.