The result of the battle for Moscow Despite the failure of the general offensive, the victory won by Zhukov near Moscow provided him with a very special status, a special place in History. In the thirty-two months that World War II raged, he became the first general to defeat Hitler's armies. AND

Continuation of the diffusion battle On January 6, 1948, the Special Committee considered the “Report of the head of laboratory No. 4 of the Scientific Research Institute-9 of the First Main Directorate under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, prof. Lange on the implementation of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated December 17. 1945". Fritz Fritsevich Lange reported that

10. Battles for the Caucasus and Stalingrad Despite powerful preparations, starting from May 1942, a whole series of catastrophic defeats of the Red Army occurred, caused by the desire of our commanders to attack everywhere and at once, which led to an unjustified dispersal of forces and

From the fall of Rome until the end of the 15th century, war remained a constant and integral part of the life of medieval society. Visigothic invasion of the Roman Empire in 376. and their victory over Roman troops at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 marked a turning point: from this time on, barbarian invasions of Western Europe began to intensify. Behind the Visigoths came the Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans, Alemanni, Franks, Angles, Saxons and, ultimately, the Huns - a tribe that served as a kind of accelerator of the process, prompting other peoples to take off their courage and go to the West. The western part of the Roman Empire disappeared as a single state, its place was taken by many tribal formations, the ephemeral boundaries between which were constantly changing.
This is how, in fact, as is commonly believed, the Middle Ages began. Although, of course, the historical awareness of this fact and views on a rather long time period in the life of mankind, poorly illuminated by original sources, changed under the influence of the era. Of course, the Visigothic invasions played an important role in the fall of the Roman Empire, and the defeat and death of Emperor Valens in the battle of Adrianople effectively divided the empire into two halves. However, the fall of Rome could not have occurred as a result of one single event; the process was progressive and actually stretched out for another whole century. The barbarian armies also, apparently, were not as different from the Roman ones as is commonly believed, that is, they were not less disciplined, less bureaucratic in terms of organization, less well armed and had worse armor. In fact, many of the warriors gained martial arts while serving in the Roman armies, sometimes acting against other barbarians or... other Roman troops.
At first they used Roman weapons and armor, but quite soon they replaced the bronze plate or scale protective vestments adopted by the Romans with iron chain mail, and short Roman swords and throwing spears with longer chopping swords, as well as noticeably longer spears for stabbing blows and axes or axes.
The barbarians - let's call them that - also had unwritten codes of honor, rules of behavior in battle, which permeated their concepts of everything in the world, the exploits of heroes were sung in songs and tales and were directly reflected in the names of people, both male and female . Warriors were considered the elite of society. Their lives were valued especially highly in a system where everything was measured by the so-called vira and they were buried with their weapons and the most expensive trophies. The tribal leaders of the barbarians, or their kings, also acted as military leaders.

Anatoly Stegalin: “My graphic reconstruction of this battle is the first in more than six centuries!”

What was the largest battle in the Middle Ages?
The question is, of course, interesting.
The answer is even more interesting: The Battle of Grunwald... No: at Kosovo Field... What else: at Poitiers...
What are you talking about, the Battle of Kulikovo! *

Everything is correct! Every nation has fateful battles, the greatness and significance of which for their native country is undeniable.
And for the world, for history?

Well, let's correct the question: what is the most mysterious and little-known of the great battles of the Middle Ages?

And this is where the question becomes sharply paradoxical, especially if you add that it is about the same thing (the SAME) as the first one! For in terms of the number of fighting forces, bloodshed, global significance, geopolitical results and strategic scale (commander level), it has no equal, at least in the late Middle Ages.

Alas, by a strange whim of fate, this particular battle was beyond the sight and interest of military historians. No monographs, no maps. There is no special chapter about it even in the multi-volume opus of the great specialist in the history of wars, Evgeniy Razin.

But here’s what’s typical: against the backdrop of general historical ignorance, our “unlearned fellow countrymen” look much more advanced:
“The place for the battle is located on the Kondurche River between
the village of Novaya Zhizn and the village of Nadezhdino (in 1858-1941 there were German settlements here - the colonies of Alexandrotal and Marienthal). This field, not counting the adjacent gentle hills, is 2.5 times larger than the field near Old Buyan (about 10 square kilometers).”

This, by the way, is a fragment of a competitive essay by 9th grade student Mikhail Anoldov from the village of Koshki, Samara Region, published in the magazine “Science and Life” (No. 2, 2004).

Indeed, residents of the Samara region have heard more than once about the great forgotten battle on the Kondurcha River**. And many became direct “eyewitnesses” and even “participants” of the massacre as part of the game of historical reenactors, recreating its main stages.

However, the game writers know just as little about where exactly and how the battle took place, which in its grandeur is quite comparable to the “Battle of the Nations” at Leipzig, where the power of Napoleon I was destroyed (1814), or on the Catalaunian fields (451), where The Romans stopped the invasion of the Huns by Attila***.

The Kondurchin language was carefully studied by the remarkable Samara local historian Emelyan Guryanov. But even he did not have enough materials for a separate study on the burning topic.

This is how this “blank spot” of world history gaped for more than six centuries, until Anatoly Stegalin’s book “Tokhtamysh against Tamerlane” was published. In the work, to which a lot of time and effort was devoted, the author substantiates a number of interesting theses.

Firstly, the beginning of the death of the Golden Horde, says Anatoly Stegalin, was not the victories of Dmitry Donskoy, which are included in all textbooks of Russian history, but the unknown to most, defeat on the Kondurcha River of the troops of the ruler of the Golden Horde Tokhtamysh by the army of the powerful ruler of Transoxiana - Emir Timur (Tamerlane), who created the most powerful empire in Asia after Genghis Khan. It was after this defeat that the Horde lost their former military power, and the Volga Mongol Empire itself experienced irresistible tendencies towards collapse. Thus, the merciless “iron lame” Tamerlane acted as an indirect benefactor of Muscovite Rus'!

Secondly, according to the author, the greatest medieval military operation fell out of the focus of historians of Russia, Central Asia and, especially, Europe, since it took place in remote and sparsely populated forest-steppe regions. To Russia, the contribution of the Battle of Kulikovo to the crushing of the Horde yoke seemed much more significant, not to mention the most important patriotic “emphasis” of the victory of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich.

Thirdly, about the decisive confrontation between Timur and Tokhtamysh, in the opinion of the Samara local historian, there are only two trustworthy primary sources: “Zafar Name” - “Books of Victories” **** (both were created shortly after the event - around 1425) .

And fourth: the tactical drawing of the battle on Kondurch is worthy of being included in textbooks on the art of war, but someone undeservedly “erased” it, and Anatoly Stegalin considered it his duty to restore it.

Anatoly, when did your search for this topic begin?

About ten years ago, I was one of the organizers of the festival of historical reconstruction “The Battle of Timur and Tokhtamysh”. It had quite a resonance. And more than once, enthusiasts from military-historical clubs from all over the country came to us, on Samara soil, organizing colorful lists with the restoration of fencing techniques and the use of carefully reproduced ammunition: weapons and armor of bygone times. The guys have reached such a level of martial art in this matter that it’s time to give a master class to everyone.

And then the festival wave began to decline...

Yes, it was then that time appeared for specific research work on the restoration of the battle painting. I scoured the Internet and more than one library, after which I made conclusions that literally begged to be written down on paper. In the end, it turned out to be a whole book.

Is this a purely historical account?

No, the work is not written in a dry, highly academic style, but in a simple, understandable language with elements of intrigue. I believe that being entertaining will ensure a wide audience. In general, I would label this narrative genre as “research in the key of Internet blues.”

But what about scientific paraphernalia: quotes, sources, historiography, chronology, comparative historical analysis?

I hope that all these attributes are met. I didn’t compose, I didn’t fantasize, but I reconstructed. The texts of the original documents are quite complex for modern perception and even ornate. I studied them in detail, compared them with analogues, and generalized the coincidences.

Do the human resources of the fighting sides really allow us to classify the battle of Kondurch as one of the largest?

Previously, the number of soldiers was increased to 400 thousand. I think that this ratio is more realistic: Tamerlane has 120 thousand against Tokhtamysh’s 150 thousand.

About 30 years ago, approximately the same number of troops was “inscribed” in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380), and Mamai’s horde “reached” up to 300 thousand. Now, having studied the geography of the field, we have come to the conclusion that the arithmetic is overestimated by three to four times. And under the same Grunwald (1410), the total number of participants (Poles, Litvins, Russians and Czechs, together with the Teutonic Order opposing them) hardly reached the “number of one” Tokhtamysh. About 90-100 thousand Serbs and Turks fought on Kosovo Field (1389). So your point of view is quite valid.

It’s not even the main factor here, but the consequences: after the defeat at Kondurch, the collapse of the Golden Horde began.

Where did you get such a detailed map of the battle with the exact location of troops at different stages of the battle?

Asian chroniclers, and even European chroniclers, alas, did not practice such schemes, so my graphic reconstruction of the Battle of Kondurchin is the first in more than six centuries.

Anatoly Stegalin: “I invite everyone to the presentation at the Alabino Museum on March 1 at 15:00. The museum is preparing a little sensation, and I hope to get the audience a little excited...

about the author
Anatoly Stegalin (born in 1957) is a Samara local historian who thinks outside the box and digs deep. The scope of his interests is very broad: alternative history and search journalism (especially the “white spots” of Samara history), mythology, esotericism, organizing festivals of historical reenactors of ancient battles, alternative medicine and pharmaceuticals, photography, the study of paranormal phenomena (ufology), educational aspects of role-playing games...
He devoted more than one year to researching the log-logging culture of the Volga region. He hopes to soon systematize the results of his research, which are far from traditional, in a new book that will not leave anyone indifferent.

* Battle of Poitiers No. 1, also known as the Battle of Tours, and in Arabic sources the Battle of the Martyrs' Cohort (October 10, 732). The decisive battle between the hitherto victorious Arab army (under the leadership of the governor of al-Andalusia of the Umayyad Caliphate, Abdur-Rahman ibn Abdallah) and the collective forces of Europe (under the supremacy of the Austrasian majordomo Charles Martel). Occurred near the border between the Frankish kingdom and the then independent Aquitaine. The Frankish troops were victorious, Abdur-Rahman ibn Abdallah was killed, and Martell subsequently extended his influence further to the south. Apparently, the Frankish troops won the battle on foot. Leopold von Ranke believed that "The Battle of Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important eras in the history of the world." A crushing defeat for the Umayyads, it hastened their decline by stopping the spread of Islam in Europe and establishing the rule of the Franks and their Carolingian overlords as the dominant European dynasty. Data from ancient Muslim sources indicate the number of Umayyad troops at 20-80 thousand or more soldiers, and the Franks at 30 thousand. The number of parties mentioned is from 20 thousand to 80 thousand. Losses from 1500 to 10,000.

Battle of Poitiers No. 2 (September 19, 1356) - a brilliant victory of the English corps of Edward “The Black Prince” (8 thousand soldiers) over the French army (50 thousand, about 20 dukes) of King John II the Good during the Hundred Years War. King John the Good fought bravely, but was captured along with his youngest son Philip (later Duke Philip II of Burgundy). The entire flower of French chivalry perished. Among those killed were Duke Pierre I de Bourbon, Constable of France Gautier VI de Brienne, Bishop of Chalons, 16 barons, 2426 knights; In total, 8 thousand were killed, and 5 thousand were killed during the flight. On May 24, 1357, the captive king was solemnly brought to London. A truce was concluded with France for 2 years. The ransom for the king was equal to 2 annual incomes of the kingdom, not to mention the banal trophy. For France it was a moment of national mourning. The Dauphin Charles V the Wise became the king's deputy.

The Battle of Kosovo Polje (Serbian: Kosovska bitka 15 June 1389) was a fateful battle between the combined forces of Serbia and the Kingdom of Bosnia with the Turkish army of Sultan Murad I, 5 kilometers from modern Pristina. The number of Turkish troops was about 27-40 thousand people. Among them are 2-5 thousand janissaries, 2500 horsemen of the Sultan’s personal guard, 6 thousand sipahis, 20 thousand azaps and akinci and 8 thousand warriors of vassal states. The army of the Serbian prince Lazar Hrebeljanovic consisted of 12-33 thousand soldiers (12-15 thousand people were under the direct command of Lazar, 5-10 thousand under the command of Vuk Brankovic, and about the same number of soldiers under the command of the Bosnian nobleman Vlatko Vukovich. He fought in the Serbian army a detachment of Knights Hospitaller, as well as a knightly detachment from Poland and Hungary). At the beginning of the battle, the Sultan was killed. According to some sources, he was killed by the Orthodox knight Milos Obilic, who, posing as a defector, entered the Sultan’s tent and stabbed him with a knife. After the death of the Sultan, the Turkish army was led by his son Bayazid. Lazarus is captured and executed, and Lazarus' daughter Olivera is sent to the Sultan's harem. The Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and supply troops to the Ottoman army. Serbia became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, and in 1459 it was included in it. Despite the decisive victory of the Ottoman forces, immediately after the battle the Sultan's army made a hasty march towards Adrianople due to heavy losses, as well as the fears of the heir Murad Bayezid that the death of his father could lead to unrest in the Ottoman Empire. In the past, the number of Serbs was increased to 30 thousand, Turks 2-3 times more.

The Battle of Grunwald (Tannenbeg) July 15, 1410 - a general battle between the allied Polish-Lithuanian army led by King Vladislav II Jagiello and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas (39,000 people) and the army of the Teutonic Order under the leadership of Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen (27,000). Most of the knights of the order were killed or captured. Previously, the numbers of fighting forces were brought up to 80 thousand people on both sides. The outcome of the battle determined the final collapse of the order and the rapid flowering of the power of the unitary Polish-Lithuanian state.

The Battle of Kulikovo or the Battle of the Don (September 8, 1380) - the complete defeat of the army of the Horde dark leader Mamai by the united Russian army of the Moscow prince Dmitry Donskoy. Data on the number of troops vary greatly. The “Chronicle Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo” speaks of 100 thousand soldiers of the Moscow Principality and 50-100 thousand soldiers of the allies, “The Tale of the Battle of Mamayev” - 260 thousand or 303 thousand, the Nikon Chronicle - 400 thousand (there are estimates of the number of individual units of the Russian army: 30 thousand Belozersts, 7 or 30 thousand Novgorodians, 7 or 70 thousand Lithuanians, 40-70 thousand in the ambush regiment). Later researchers (E.A. Razin and others), having calculated the total population of Russian lands, taking into account the principle of recruiting troops and the time of crossing of the Russian army (the number of bridges and the period of crossing over them), settled on the fact that under the banner of Dmitry gathered 50-60 thousand soldiers (this agrees with the data of the “first Russian historian” V.N. Tatishchev about 60 thousand), of which only 20-25 thousand are troops of the Moscow principality itself. Significant forces came from territories controlled by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but in the period 1374-1380 became allies of Moscow (Bryansk, Smolensk, Drutsk, Dorogobuzh, Novosil, Tarusa, Obolensk, presumably Polotsk, Starodub, Trubchevsk). S.B. Veselovsky believed in his early works that there were about 200-400 thousand people on the Kulikovo field, but over time he came to the conclusion that in the battle the Russian army could only number 5-6 thousand people. According to A. Bulychev, the Russian army (like the Mongol-Tatar) could be about 6-10 thousand people with 6-9 thousand horses (that is, it was mainly a cavalry battle of professional horsemen).
Modern scientists have given their estimate of the size of the Mongol-Tatar army: B.U. Urlanis believed that Mamai had 60 thousand people. Historians M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin and V.I. Buganov believed that the Russians were opposed by 100-150 thousand Mongol-Tatars. Yu. V. Seleznev made an assumption about the Mongol-Tatar army of 90 thousand people (since it is presumably known that Mamai led 9 tumens with him). Military historian and weapons expert M.V. Gorelik suggested that the real number of Mamaev’s army did not exceed 30-40 thousand people. The battle had enormous moral significance for the Russian people, who had been under the yoke of the Golden Horde for 140 years.

** Battle of Kondurcha (June 18, 1391) - a grandiose massacre between the troops of Timur Tamerlane and the Golden Horde army of Khan Tokhtamysh on the banks of the Kondurcha River (modern Samara region). The battle ended with the complete defeat of Tokhtamysh and his flight across the Volga, and then to Lithuania. This predetermined the rapid decline of the Golden Horde.

*** The Battle of Leipzig (October 16-19, 1813) is the most significant battle in the history of the Napoleonic Wars in terms of the number of participants - the “Battle of the Nations”. The French army of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (about 200 thousand) suffered a crushing defeat from the allied forces of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Sweden under the command of Schwarzenberg, Barcalay de Tolia, Blucher and Bernadotte (about 300 thousand). During 4 days of fighting, the Allied forces lost up to 55 thousand soldiers and officers killed and wounded. The exact losses of the French are more difficult to indicate; apparently, they amounted to up to 40 thousand people killed and wounded, as well as up to 30 thousand prisoners, among them 36 generals. 325 guns and extensive warehouses and convoys fell into the hands of the Allies. Also, do not forget that on October 18, 5 thousand Saxons went over to the side of the coalition. As a result, Napoleon abdicated the throne (by the way, the Battle of Borodino in 1812 was bloodier, stubborn and decisive in its consequences).

The Battle of Waterloo (June 18, 1815) - the final defeat of Napoleon I (72.5 thousand with 240 guns) of the military coalition of England and Prussia under the command of Wellington and Blucher (70 thousand people with 159 guns). The French lost all their artillery at the Battle of Waterloo, 25,000 killed and wounded and 8,000 prisoners. The Allies lost: Wellington - 15,000 killed and wounded, Blücher - 7,000 (1,200 killed, 4,400 wounded and 1,400 captured).
In total, 15,750 people were killed on the battlefield (22,000 Allied losses according to the calculations of E.V. Tarle). Previously, the figures were inflated; it was said that Napoleon had almost one and a half times fewer troops: 80 thousand versus 120 (correctly, taking into account the “lost” units of Grusha).

The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (June 20, 451) is one of the most important and largest battles in history. The Romans and their allies under the command of Aetius (100 thousand) defeated the hitherto indestructible army of Attila (69 thousand Huns and about 30 thousand allies). Not so long ago, the number of combatants was increased to half a million.

****According to Sherif ad-din, Tokhtamysh was completely unprepared for the invasion of the Golden Horde by Tamerlane’s troops. Intending to wear down the enemy, he began a retreat, thereby giving Tamerlane the opportunity to deploy his forces and press the Horde troops to the Volga, crossing the Kondurcha River. The location of the battle is disputed. According to Persian sources, Tokhtamysh's troops far outnumbered their enemy. However, Tamerlane’s army, which had well-armed and trained infantry and had a powerful center, was a much more organized and combat-ready force than the Horde troops of Tokhtamysh, which predetermined the outcome of the battle. Tamerlane's troops were divided into 7 divisions, and 2 of them were in reserve, ready, by order of the commander-in-chief, to come to the aid of the center or flank. Tamerlane's infantry on the battlefield was protected by trenches and huge shields.

Tamerlane's army was lined up in the battle as follows. In the center was the kul of Timur under the command of Mirza Suleimanshah, behind was the second kul of Timur under the leadership of Muhammad Sultan, next to them were 20 koshuns, which were at Timur’s personal disposal. On the right flank was the kul of Mirza Miranshah (as a kanbul - flank guard - next to it was the kul of Haji Seif ad-Din). On the left flank was the kul of Mirza Omar-Sheikh (as a kanbul - the kul of Berdibek).

At the beginning of the battle, numerous Horde troops tried to envelop the enemy from the flanks, but all attacks of the Horde warriors were repulsed, and then Tamerlane’s army launched a counter-offensive and, with a powerful flank attack, overthrew the Horde and pursued them for 200 miles to the banks of the Volga. The Horde were pressed to the shore. The battle was incredibly fierce and, lasting 3 days, was accompanied by unprecedented bloodshed. The Horde were completely defeated, but Tokhtamysh managed to escape. One of the decisive events of the battle was the betrayal of part of the Horde military elite, who went over to the enemy’s side. Timur's victory came at a cost, and therefore he did not develop further offensive, refusing to cross to the right bank of the Volga. The families and property of the Horde warriors went to the winners.
Nowadays, every year at the site of the battle a historical re-enactment takes place by the Samara Museum of Local Lore and military history clubs.

Sources of the “Book of Victories” by Sheref ad-din: 1) “Zafar-name” by Nizam-ad-din Shami; 2) descriptions and diaries of individual campaigns, which Nizam-ad-din used, but Sheref-ad-din borrowed from them many details omitted by his predecessor; 3) a poetic chronicle compiled by Timur’s Uyghur scribes in the Turkic language in Uyghur writing; 4) oral messages from contemporaries and participants in Timur’s campaigns.

WARS OF THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, its eastern counterpart in Byzantium continued to exist, and its struggle for survival with the Arabs, and then with the Turks and Bulgarians, is a fascinating story. In 622, Muhammad led his followers from Mecca to Medina, marking the beginning of Arabian and Islamic expansion. The first military victory was won by the prophet himself, but the most prominent leaders of the Islamic campaign were to become Khalid ibn al-Walid and Amr ibn al-As. Within a hundred years, the Islamic empire stretched from the Aral Sea to the headwaters of the Nile and from the borders of China to the Bay of Biscay. Only one power, Byzantium, could resist the Arabs in that century, and even it lost the southeastern part of its empire. Then, when the Arab offensive, having reached southern France, fizzled out, the Franks again took a prominent place. And finally, in the 8th century. Viking raids began on Britain and Western Europe. A notable phenomenon in the military history of Western Europe in the 7th – 11th centuries was the steady development of cavalry.

The Arabs carried out their conquests thanks to the skillful use of camel and horse troops in convenient terrain, the open spaces of North Africa and Western Asia. But their battle formations and battle tactics were very primitive, and their means of defense were rather meager. Usually they were built in one, sometimes in two or three dense rows, units were formed from different tribes. Fear was caused by the number of Arabs and their appearance. As one Byzantine military leader noted, “they are very brave when they are confident of victory: they firmly hold the line and boldly resist the most furious attacks. Feeling that the enemy is weakening, with joint desperate efforts they deliver the final blow.” The foot troops were mostly incapable of combat and poorly armed; the Arabs' strength was the cavalry. At the beginning of the 7th century. cavalry was lightly armed and extremely mobile, but in subsequent centuries the Arabs learned much from their most stubborn opponents, the Byzantines, and increasingly relied on mounted archers and spearmen, protected by chain mail, helmets, shields and greaves.

Defensive structures of Constantinople, practically preserved before the capture by the Turks in 1453.

But the best qualities of the armies of Islam were not in equipment and organization, but in the moral principles generated by religion, mobility thanks to camel transport and endurance developed by difficult living conditions in the desert. The faithful followers of Muhammad were extremely close to the idea of ​​jihad, a holy war. There was also an economic reason for Arab aggression, the old history of overpopulation in the Arabian Peninsula. Over the centuries, South Arabia became drier and its inhabitants moved north. Arab population explosion in the 7th century. was the fourth, final, and largest Semitic migration. As before, migrants naturally first flocked to the fertile crescent of the Middle East with its fertile lands, and only then spilled out beyond the Euphrates and Nile valleys. They went far beyond the territories they conquered in ancient times, not only because of their numbers, but also because almost everywhere the conquered peoples greeted them as deliverers. Their tolerance, humanity and impressive civilization converted almost as many people as they conquered by force. With the exception of Spain, they conquered in the 7th century. The areas have preserved the Islamic religion and culture to this day.

The first obstacle for the Arabs was Byzantium. In the VIII – XI centuries. The Byzantine army and navy, in essence, were the most combat-ready force in the European and Mediterranean space. In 668, and then every year from 672 to 677, the Arabs attacked the Byzantine Empire at various points. They invaded its borders, but each time the Byzantine fleet ultimately defeated the invaders. Arab and Byzantine galleys were more or less identical. The large battle dromon had a hundred oarsmen placed on two rows of benches. The rowers in the top row were armed, and the crew was supplemented by marines. But the ships of the Byzantines were better equipped, armed with “Greek fire” - an incendiary mixture that was shot through a pipe on the bow or thrown into ballistas in pots.

The high point and turning point in the war between the Arabs and the Byzantines was the siege of Constantinople in 717–718. When the Arabs conquered Asia Minor, Emperor Theodosius III entered a monastery, but at this critical moment the professional military man Leo the Isaurian (Syrian) took over leadership. He quickly restored and strengthened the impressive fortifications of Constantinople - before the use of gunpowder, such walls were impregnable to the attackers and the city could only be taken by siege. Since Constantinople was surrounded on three sides by water, everything seemed to depend on the balance of power of the opposing fleets, and the Arabs had a huge numerical superiority here. However, Leo bravely and resourcefully led the twelve-month defense of the city, and when the siege was lifted, the Byzantine fleet pursued the enemy to the Hellespont, where the Arabs were caught in a storm and only a small fraction of their forces survived. For the Arabs this proved to be an unforgettable disaster. Thanks to the subsequent victory at Akroin in 739, Leo forced the Arabs to finally abandon the western part of Asia Minor.

The successes of Leo the Isaurian were achieved thanks to the combat capability of the army and navy that had been building up over a long period of time. Since the time of Belisarius, the main force of the Byzantine troops was heavy cavalry. The warrior was protected by long chain mail from the neck to the hips, a medium-sized round shield, a steel helmet, plate gauntlets and steel boots. The horses in the front row were also protected by steel breastplates. All the horses were under large, comfortable saddles with iron stirrups. The armament consisted of a broad sword, a dagger, a small bow with a quiver of arrows, and a long spear. Sometimes a battle ax was attached to the saddle. Like their Roman predecessors and unlike other Western armies, until the 16th century. Byzantine troops wore a set uniform: the cape over the armor, the pennant at the end of the spear and the plume of the helmet were of a certain color, distinguishing a particular military unit. To afford such equipment, the horseman had to have significant wealth. All commanders and every four to five soldiers were assigned an orderly. This was also expensive, but it made sense so that the soldiers could concentrate on purely military duties and, through good nutrition, maintain good physical shape. The history of the wealthy Byzantine Empire shows that a little comfort does not harm the requirements of combat effectiveness.

The functions of foot troops were limited to the defense of mountainous terrain and garrison service in fortresses and important cities. Most of the light infantry were archers, while the heavily armed infantry carried a spear, sword and battle axe. Each unit of 16 people was entitled to two carts for transporting weapons, food, kitchen utensils and entrenching tools. The Byzantines retained the classical Roman practice of building fortified camps at regular intervals, and the engineering troops were invariably at the forefront of the army. For each unit of 400 people there was a medical officer and six to eight porters. For each person carried from the battlefield, the porters received a reward - not so much for humanitarian reasons, but rather because the state was interested in the speedy restoration of the wounded's combat capability.

The cornerstone of the Byzantine military system was operational-tactical training: the Byzantines won with cunning and skill. They rightly believed that methods of combat should vary depending on the enemy's tactics, and carefully studied the techniques of a potential enemy. The most important military works of that time are the “Strategikon” of Mauritius (c. 580), “Tactics” of Leo the Wise (c. 900) and instructions on the conduct of border warfare by Nikephoros Phocas (who conquered Crete and Cilicia from the Arabs, in 963 - 969 former emperor).

Mauritius reorganized the structure and recruitment system of the army. He developed a hierarchy of units and units from the simplest unit of 16 soldiers to the “meros”, a division consisting of 6 - 8 thousand soldiers. There was a corresponding hierarchy of commanders, with the appointment of all military commanders above the rank of centurion being in the hands of the central government. After the Justinian Wars, the number of Teutonic mercenaries in the Byzantine army was greatly reduced. The empire did not have universal conscription for men, but there was a system that required regions, if necessary, to send a certain number of men for military training and active service. The border regions were divided into districts called “klissurs”, which, for example, could consist of a mountain pass and a fortress. Command of a klissura often served as a stepping stone to a successful military career. In a poem of the 10th century. “Digenes Akritas” describes life on the border of Cappadocia, where the warlike feudal lords who ruled the country carried out endless raids on the Arab territories of Cilicia and Mesopotamia.

The Byzantine tactics were based on a series of heavy cavalry attacks. According to Leo the Wise, the cavalry had to be divided into a first, fighting echelon, a second echelon of support and a small reserve behind the second, as well as units pushed far forward on both flanks, with the task of overturning the opposing flank of the enemy or protecting their own. Up to half of the available forces were allocated to the first echelon; the rest, depending on the tactical situation, were distributed in depth and on the flanks.

Naturally, there was a wide variety of tactical battle formations. Against the Slavs and Franks, as well as during major Arab invasions, foot and horse troops often acted together. In such cases, foot troops were stationed in the center, and cavalry was on the flanks or in reserve. If the enemy was expected to begin the battle with a cavalry charge, the light troops hid behind the heavy infantry, “in the same way,” Oman notes, “as a thousand years later the musketeers of the 16th and 17th centuries hid behind their pikemen.” In the mountainous terrain and gorges, the foot troops were positioned in a crescent shape, the heavily armed units blocked the enemy in the center, and the light infantry showered the enemy with arrows and spears on the flanks.

The Byzantines were the best warriors of the early Middle Ages in Europe, but the least conspicuous. This is because their strategy was mainly defensive and they preferred to rely more on their heads than on their brawn. They never entered into battle until circumstances were clearly in their favor, and often resorted to such cunning and subterfuge as spreading false information or inciting treason in the enemy ranks. They constantly had to resort to defensive actions: either to keep the Arabs out of Asia Minor, or to keep the Lombards and Franks from invading the Italian provinces, and to keep the Slavs, Bulgarians, Avars, Magyars and Pechenegs out of Greece and the Balkans. Thanks to constant combat readiness and vigilance, they were able to successfully hold the borders, this was their main task, and only very rarely did Byzantium act as an aggressive power.

The most formidable enemies of Byzantium were the Arabs. But the Arabs never appreciated organization and discipline. Although their armies were to be feared due to their numbers and mobility, they were largely a collection of aggressive and assertive savages who could not resist the systematic attacks of the orderly ranks of disciplined Byzantine warriors. The commanders of the Byzantine provinces also created an effective border security system. As soon as reports of Arab movements arrived, they gathered their forces. Foot troops blocked the paths, and the cavalry, gathered in the center, had to keep an eye on the invading forces, constantly attacking them. If the commander saw that he was inferior in strength, he had to avoid open battle, but create obstacles for the enemy by all other means - if possible, harass him with small raids, defend crossings and mountain passes, clog wells and put up roadblocks. In these cases, troops were recruited in distant provinces, and over time a well-trained army, say 30 thousand cavalry, marched against the Arabs. After their defeat at Akroin in 739, the Arabs were more of a nuisance than a threat to the security of the Byzantine Empire.

After 950, the Byzantine emperors Nikephoros Phocas and Basil II launched an offensive against the Arabs and Bulgarians. In 1014, Vasily completely destroyed the Bulgarian army, receiving the title of Bulgarian Slayer. He blinded 15 thousand captives, leaving one one-eyed man from every hundred to take them to their king.

In 1045 Armenia was annexed. However, in the middle of the 11th century. A new enemy, the Seljuk Turks, began to put pressure on the borders. The Turks in western Asia were considered natural horsemen. They formed numerous bands, armed mainly with bows, but often also with spears and scimitars. When attacking, they rushed in front of the enemy’s front, showering him with clouds of arrows and delivering short, painful blows. In the spring of 1071, Emperor Roman Diogenes with 60 thousand soldiers moved to Armenia, where he was met by 100 thousand Turks under the command of Alp Arslan. The novel recklessly discarded traditional Byzantine prudence and thoroughness. At Manzikert, the flower of the Byzantine army was destroyed, and the emperor himself was captured. The Turks poured into Asia Minor and in ten years turned it into a desert.

In Western Europe, the history of the Franks developed according to a model that differed little from the Byzantine one. With an increasingly cavalry-dominated army, they successfully stopped the Arab advance, but then, following a period of military and cultural superiority, were weakened by pressure from the barbarian Viking tribes.

For two centuries after Clovis's victory at Vougle in 507, which established their dominance over Gaul, the Franks did not change their military organization. Agathias describes the means of warfare of the Franks during the Merovingian dynasty (c. 450 - 750) as follows:

“The equipment of the Franks is very crude, they have neither chain mail nor greaves, their legs are protected only by strips of canvas or leather. There are almost no horsemen, but the foot soldiers are brave and know how to fight. They have swords and shields, but they never use bows. Throw battle axes and spears. The spears are not very long, they are thrown or simply struck with them.”

The throwing axes of the Franks, like the tomahawks of the Red Indians, were carefully hung in order to throw them with high accuracy or to use them in close combat. The armies of the Franks fought with precisely such weapons for two centuries, attacking in discordant ranks of foot soldiers. Most of the battles were fought between themselves. True, when we had to deal more often with various other armies, other means began to be used. At the end of the 6th century. wealthy warriors began to use metal armor.

In 732, Abd al-Rahman with an Arab army advanced north to Tours. Charles Martell gathered the forces of the Franks and moved towards the Arabs who were retreating with the booty. When Abd al-Rahman attacked, “the northerners stood like a wall, they seemed to be frozen together and struck the Arabs with swords. In the thick of the battle were the mighty Austrasians, it was they who sought out and defeated the Saracen king.”

It was a defensive battle won by infantry. They did not pursue the enemy. It cannot be said that the Franks, like the Byzantines, stopped the Arabs. The Arabs simply advanced as far as their resources allowed.

In 768, the grandson of Charles Martel, known as Charlemagne, ascended the throne of the Frankish king. At first there was much dangerous unrest in the kingdom, and if aggressive neighbors did not respond to gentle treatment, the only course of action was complete subjugation. Charlemagne considered himself a world ruler, appointed by God to manage secular affairs on earth. His missionaries advanced alongside the troops, often directly acting as a psychological strike force. He wrote to the pope: “Our task is to defend the Holy Church of Christ by force of arms with the help of holy piety. Your task, Holy Father, is to raise your hands to the sky, like Moses, to pray for assistance for our troops.” Thanks to the high combat effectiveness of Charlemagne's troops and his tireless activity, peace and tranquility came to the west of Europe, which it had not seen since the time of the Antonine dynasty. Military successes were a condition for achievements in the economy, justice and culture.

However, Charlemagne often resorted to extremely cruel measures, such as the murder in 782 in Verdun of four and a half thousand rebellious Saxon pagans in one day. From 768 to 814, Charlemagne undertook military campaigns almost every year. His Holy Roman Empire eventually covered the territory now occupied by France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, West Germany, most of Italy, northern Spain and Corsica.

Charlemagne's army was very different from his grandfather's, the main difference being the transformation of heavy cavalry into a striking force. Cavalry was needed in long-distance, large-scale campaigns against enemies such as horse archers among the Avars or heavily armed spearmen in Lombardy. The importance of cavalry had long been recognized, but the cost of maintaining it was beyond the means of the Franks. In addition to expensive armor, the knight had to maintain an appropriate horse, strong enough to carry a knight in full armor, trained enough not to be frightened and carried away in battle, and fast enough for a swift attack. Such horses were specially bred and prepared. Even the costs of maintenance and food in winter were very significant. And the knight himself needed at least two servants: one to keep his weapons in order, the other to look after his horse; Moreover, the knight needed a lot of time for preparation and service itself. Under the Merovingian dynasty, no Frankish ruler was rich enough to maintain an army of heavy cavalry.

This and other problems were solved with the development of feudalism. The peculiarity of this system was that the lord, be it a king or a powerful person, gave land or protection to a vassal, receiving in return a sworn obligation to provide special services, often military. Charlemagne largely feudalized his kingdom. This arrangement appealed to those who were wealthy and those seeking protection in these troubled times. In the chaos that followed the death of Charlemagne in 814, when the empire fell apart, and Europe was plagued by attacks from the Magyars and Vikings, society turned into a kind of honeycomb, a system of cells based on mutual obligations: protection and service. The impact of feudalism on military affairs was twofold. On the one hand, the vassals who owned significant land could afford, and this was required of them, to equip knighthood. On the other hand, bonds of loyalty and mutual interest contributed to increased discipline in the army.

The core of the Frankish army was heavy cavalry. Not particularly numerous, it was highly professional. All knights had chain mail, helmets, shields, spears and battle axes. The old Frankish "militia" did not completely disappear, but the number of foot troops was reduced and combat effectiveness increased thanks to better weapons. At the Field of Mars, the annual gathering of the Frankish army, it was not allowed to appear with only a club - you had to have a bow. Charlemagne achieved a level of training, discipline and general organization not seen in the West since the barbarization of the Roman legions. An interesting document has survived in which Charlemagne in 806 summons one of the important vassals to the royal army:

“You will report to Stasfurt on the Bod by May 20th with your men, ready to perform military service in any part of our kingdom that we indicate. This means that you will come with weapons and equipment, full uniform and a supply of food. Each rider must have a shield, spear, sword, dagger, bow and quiver. The carts should have shovels, axes, picks, stakes with iron tips and everything necessary for the army. Take provisions for three months. On the way, do not cause harm to our subjects, do not touch anything except water, wood and grass. Take care that there are no omissions, since you appreciate our favor.”

Little is known with certainty about the Frankish battle formations. Probably, probing the enemy and the first skirmishes were entrusted to foot archers, and the cavalry delivered the decisive blow with all its might. Perhaps success was more likely to be accompanied by the good training and armament of the troops and the strategic insight of Charlemagne, rather than tactical skill. The solidity of his conquests was primarily ensured by the creation of a system of fortified points along the borders and in troubled areas, usually on hills near rivers.

In the 9th century. in the absence of kings knowledgeable in military affairs, the Frankish army loses its positive qualities. Leo the Wise describes the characteristics and weaknesses of the Franks as follows.

“Franks and pawnbrokers are overly fearless and daring. The slightest step back is considered disgraceful, and they will fight whenever you force a fight on them. When their knights are forced to dismount, they do not run, but stand back to back and fight against vastly superior enemy forces. Cavalry attacks are so terrible that, if you are not completely confident in your superiority, it is best to avoid a decisive battle. You should take advantage of their lack of discipline and organization. Both on foot and on horseback, they attack in a dense, clumsy mass, unable to maneuver because they are not organized and not trained. They are quickly thrown into confusion if they are unexpectedly attacked from the rear or from the flanks - this is easily achieved, since they are extremely careless and do not bother to set up patrols or conduct proper reconnaissance of the area. In addition, they camp as needed and do not make fortifications, so they can be easily killed at night. They cannot stand hunger and thirst and after a few days of deprivation they leave the ranks. They have no respect for their commanders, and their superiors cannot resist the temptation of bribes. Therefore, in general, it is easier and cheaper to exhaust the Frankish army with small skirmishes, protracted operations in uninhabited areas, cutting supply lines, rather than trying to finish them off with one blow.”

Charlemagne's empire began to disintegrate soon after his death due to weak power and raids from three directions at once throughout the 9th and 10th centuries. - Arabs, Magyars and Vikings. The biggest threat to Europe now came from the Scandinavian Vikings.

The Viking, or Scandinavian, invasions began at the end of the 8th century. At first, the raids that took place throughout Europe seem to have been carried out mainly for the purpose of plunder, but later many conquerors settled in the lands they had captured. In 911, the king of the Franks ceded them the land, which was later called Normandy, and ultimately all of England became part of the Scandinavian empire of the Danish king Canute (995 - 1035). Meanwhile, the Vikings also invaded Iceland, Greenland and America, Spain, Morocco and Italy, Novgorod, Kyiv and Byzantium.

The strength of the Vikings lay in their seafaring skills. Their ships were at the level of the highest technical achievements and were the subject of their greatest pride, and they themselves were very skillful and hardy sailors. The "Gokstad ship" found in the excavations is 70 feet long and 16 feet wide, built of oak and weighs 20 tons. Its design is the most perfect. During long journeys, the Vikings sailed, but in battle they used oars. Yellow and black shields were hung alternately along the sides. By the 10th century ships became much larger in size, some of them could accommodate up to two hundred people and could sail 150 miles in a day. Food was preserved with salt and ice.

The Vikings always fought sea battles near the coast. They usually consisted of three stages. First, the commander conducted reconnaissance and chose a position to launch an attack, then, maneuvering, began approaching. During the battle, the captain always stood at the wheel. When the flotillas converged, the shelling began, usually the enemy was showered with a hail of arrows, but sometimes they were simply pelted with pieces of iron and stones. And finally, the Vikings boarded the ship, and the outcome of the battle was decided by hand-to-hand combat.

After this, the fleet remained the base of operations for raids into the interior. Typically, the Vikings moved upstream along important waterways, bypassing the countryside and sacking monasteries and towns on both banks. They moved up as long as the river remained navigable or until they encountered fortifications that prevented further progress. Then they anchored or dragged the ships ashore, fenced them with a palisade and left a guard, after which they began to plunder the surrounding area. At first, when enemy troops appeared, they returned to the ships and went downstream. Later they became bolder. But since their forces were small and their main goal was plunder, they avoided major battles. Over time, they began to build fortified points, to which they often returned. These palisaded and moated coastal or even floating camps, defended by Viking battle axes, were extremely difficult to capture.

When the Vikings began their invasions they were probably poorly armed. One of the main goals of their robberies was the extraction of weapons and armor, and by the middle of the 9th century. they captured a lot of both, and also mastered their production themselves. Almost all Vikings had chain mail, and in other respects their armor was similar to Frankish armor. At first, the wooden shields were round, but later took on the shape of kites and were often painted in bright colors. A powerful offensive weapon was the battle axe. This was not a light tomahawk of the Franks, it was a powerful weapon - a heavy butt and a blade made of one piece of iron, mounted on an ax five feet long. Sometimes excerpts from runes were applied to the blades. In addition, the Vikings used short and long swords, spears, large bows and arrows.

The Vikings were primarily foot soldiers - preferring to use their large axes on foot. Mobility on land was achieved through the use of horses captured in the area for transport purposes. The most favorite battle formation was a solid wall of shields, such tactics were necessarily defensive, because they had to confront cavalry on foot. Usually they chose their camp, the opposite bank of the river or a steep hillside as the battlefield. Being professional warriors who feel the shoulder of a comrade in arms, they always prevailed over the hastily recruited villagers who opposed them. All Vikings were tall and had exceptional physical strength. In their ranks were two particularly fearsome types of warriors. The first included berserkers, who, surprisingly, apparently belonged to the category of specially selected madmen, distinguished by extraordinary strength and ferocity. Others, and equally surprising, were the "shield maidens"; one of them was Vebjorg, who “fought the champion Soknarsoti. She dealt him powerful blows, slapping him in the face and splitting his jaw. He put his beard in his mouth to protect himself. Vebjorg performed many great feats, (but) in the end she fell, covered with many wounds."

By the end of the 9th century, the Franks and English began to adapt to Viking tactics. In the preceding years of chaos, feudalism had developed rapidly, and the Franks were now able to assemble large forces of combat-ready cavalry. In 885 - 886 Paris successfully withstood a major Viking siege. And in England, Alfred the Great (died in 899), in order to stop the Danish Vikings, created a system of powerful fortifications. However, instead of cavalry, he relied on elite heavy infantry troops, which distinguished themselves with victories at Ashdown and Edington. He also, unlike the Franks, took steps to create a powerful fleet modeled on the ships of his enemies, the Vikings. From the time of Alfred until the middle of the 20th century. England always had a powerful naval force that could be relied upon.

And the annexation of England by Canute in 1016 was a political event, not a military one. By that time, Western Europe, finally free from 750 years of incessant barbarian raids, was already breathing easier.