# Can anyone recommend a good book about 16th century warfare?



## Toby Frost (Aug 12, 2015)

In particular, I'm looking for an accurate idea of what happened in a battle and after it. I have a fairly good idea of how the English Civil War was fought, but that's definitely at the far end of the scale (and it's 17th century too). In particular, I'm puzzled by technical questions such as what happened to people on the losing side (I assume they just fled or wandered off if they weren't important enough to be captured) and when it became clear that one side had won. I have a couple of books on the ECW, and H.R. Hale's very good, but more general, _War and Society in Renaissance Europe_, but something more battlefield-focussed would be useful.

Thanks!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 13, 2015)

Toby Frost said:


> I'm puzzled by technical questions such as what happened to people on the losing side



It depends on the extent of the defeat. Sometimes an army might try to retreat in good order, seeing that their strategic position has become untenable, and withdraw to a stronger position.

However, once an army turns and runs, cavalry would often ride through those fleeing and hack them down - this is often where the worst of the causalities arise.

A crushed army would traditionally see men of good birth (and worth) surrender themselves to be ransomed back to their families. Archers might be maimed or killed outright.

The victor might try to negotiate with any surviving authority to have them leave their lands with as much order as is possible, especially if they have a long way to travel - ie, France to England. This is especially because the last thing the victor wants is enemy soldiers remaining as brigands. Regardless, survivors would often make their way back to their own lands, where possible.

I've read that most mediaeval battles were sieges. Open battles tended to be forced by marauding armies who had no stronghold to use as a defensive strong point.

However, as to specifics and recommendations - it really depends on the period and context you're aiming for. _By Sword and Fire_ by Sean McGlynn might be a good starting point if looking especially at the English and French. For warfare in mediaeval Italy, anything on Hawkwood might be useful (I have _Hawkwood: Diabolical Englishman_ on my TBR pile).

Osprey books tend to be good references when it comes to very narrow specifics. However, the ones I've read tend to be very dry and mention little about the living history - they focus more on the original texts and archaeology.

For lush, general coverage of mediaeval warfare in Europe, then _Mediaeval Warfare_ by H.W. Koch may be useful - plenty of photos and illustrations to accompany the text. My copy is second-hand.

Simply personal opinion, but hope that helps.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 13, 2015)

As Brian says what happened on each battle's aftermath would depend on a number of factors - whether the sides managed to disengage cleanly and perhaps withdraw in order, or if panic* set in, one side might have the energy to hunt down and slaughter the other (Rivers and other natural obstacles made ready made killing grounds - so for example the Bannock of Bannockburn and I think the bloody meadow in the aftermath of the Battle of Towton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton#Aftermath was another notable slaughter ground.)

Other armies fought to extinction knowing, even if they knew their cause was lost, because that they could not extricate themselves or they had the spirit to resist capture (the destruction of the royalist infantry at Naseby springs to mind, but there are innumerable examples of this - Flodden for example.)

If the fleeing army soldiers weren't rich enough to capture, then generally I'd expect that they would slaughtered if the chasing army could get them - again from memory there are plenty of lovely quaint churches and buildings with very bloody histories as fleeing men exhausted men tried to find sanctuary, only to find the the 'no quarter' rule was still being applied by their enemies. From a purely strategic point of view I'd guess that would make sense, because if you let all these enemy escape, then they could regroup and fight another day.

As you will probably know from the Civil period being captured could be a horrendous experience and many captured soldiers would die of disease and ill treatment as they were thrown en masse into cells. This of course continues to the modern period - there is the harrowing footage of the some of the hastily constructed German PoW camps that they set up for the Soviets in WW2 - basically a huge hole in the ground, fenced off and thousands of Russian soldiers exposed to the elements and being essentially starved.

I can't think of a specific study of battle aftermaths, so I'd suggest getting accounts and books on specific battles - normally these will go into some depth on the aftermath of that particular event.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* From time immemorial, when fighting relied on the spear and sword, rather than the firearm, it is generally the _back _of the army that causes routs - the ones that are _not _engaged with the enemy and have little to do but worry and fret about what might happen. So for example in the back of phalanxes/pike squares - the ones at the front are too busy fighting for their lives to worry about panicking...well only when they glance around and discover that all they can see are their colleagues dropping armour and weapons and fleeing away from them!


----------



## Toby Frost (Aug 13, 2015)

Thanks guys. I think WW2 casts a long shadow (unsurprisingly!), because full-on attempts to murder everyone opposed to you were not that common before - at least, not standard practice - and far harder to achieve. No doubt everyone in the 30 Years' War would have loved for all the heretics to drop dead (slowly and painfully), but it seems that much of the carnage was the result of mercenaries and armies plundering the countryside and turning on the peasantry rather than on the battlefield. 

I suppose the aim in old-style warfare would be to break the enemy from the field and press on until you captured someone important enough to order a surrender. But in a war that didn't involve religion or something similar (fascism, say, which is essentially a substitute religion) or any particular level of hatred, would the defeated enemy just be driven off or allowed to scurry away?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 16, 2015)

Lyndybeige just did a piece about pursuit:





(He always posts great research videos on weapons and armour, and general history, among other things.)


----------



## svalbard (Aug 16, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> It depends on the extent of the defeat. Sometimes an army might try to retreat in good order, seeing that their strategic position has become untenable, and withdraw to a stronger position.
> 
> However, once an army turns and runs, cavalry would often ride through those fleeing and hack them down - this is often where the worst of the causalities arise.
> 
> ...



Hawkwood: Diabolical Englishman is a fantastic book.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Aug 16, 2015)

Nothing on DereMilitari.org??


----------



## Joseph W. (Oct 8, 2015)

I highly recommend _Furies: War in Europe 1450-1700 _by Lauro Martines.  More so than many authors, he spends a lot of time on the suffering in the "total war" of that period...on the battlefield as well as off it.   (He also has sections on innovations in finance that allowed European powers to carry out war on the scale they did, but maybe you'll skip that part.)


----------

