Mounted Sergeants

[Athos1660]

No suggestion here. Just a little piece of information I find interesting. I am sure some of you know it.

William the Breton, French chronicler of the 13th century, mentions in his Philippide (Book XI, l. 613-624) that, at the end of the battle of Bouvines (1214), Philip II of France sent 3000 Mounted Sergeants with lances against the last remaining 700 'Brabant ' infantrymen of Renaud de Dammartin, Count of Boulogne :

(in latin)
Que res ut regi patuit, ter mille clientes 

Hastis armatos in equis emisit in illos,

Ut perturbatos stationem solvere, seque

A tam perplexa faciat laxare corona.

"ter mille clientes 
Hastis armatos in equis" = 3000 Mounted Sergeants with lances

The Philippide is the classicizing Latin epic poem of another of his writings written before it : the Gesta Philippi H. regis Francorum in which he didn't mention this episode. Some French historians believe this happened, some don't, other don't decide on/against it. I for one won't decide.

However, it is interesting to see that the idea of 3000 (which is a lot by the standards of the day) Mounted Sergeants fighting at the same time on a battlefield without being headed by any Knights seems to Le Breton at least plausible, believable enough to write it and to be read by his contemporaries.

As a reminder, there are in game a few units of Mounted Sergeants in the lists of the 1200's which seems sensible.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks

[fogman]

This episode of the square of of 700 Brabant troops ("Brabantiones et alii quois pars adversa quasi vallum ante se posuerant numero septingenti.")

is recorded in Gesta also but crucially, it wasn't 3000 mounted sergeants, but, much more plausibly, 50 horse and 2000 foot under Thomas de St.Valery ("Thomam de Sancto Valerico")"

"equites quinquaginta et pedites duo millia, irruit cum magno furore in eoas et omnes penitus trucidavit."
(fifty horse and two thousand foot [who] rushed upon them with great fury slaughtered them all)

There is a discussion of the infantry tactic here:

https://www.cairn.info/revue-du-nord-2017-1-page-7.htm

As to why le Breton would write 3000 mounted sergeants, I suspect it has to do with Latin prosody rather than reality. The Gesta is a prose work.

[Athos1660]

This episode of the square of of 700 Brabant troops (...) is recorded in Gesta also

The "episode' I mention in OP is Philip II of France sending 3000 Mounted Sergeants with lances against this troop in the Philippide. Logically enough, the Gesta mention another kind of troop against the Brabants. The Count of Boulogne is too important not to be mentioned and fought.

There is a discussion of the infantry tactic here:
https://www.cairn.info/revue-du-nord-2017-1-page-7.htm

I knew this text. The author has a slight preference for the version of the Gesta, but his conclusion is clear :

Puisqu’il nous est impossible de découvrir quelle fut la composition de la troupe aux ordres de Thomas, retenons simplement que le roi de France doit engager au minimum trois fois plus d’hommes que n’en comptait la formation adverse pour remporter la victoire.

Rough translation :

'As it is impossible for us to find out which the composition of Thomas' troop was (3000 Mounted Sergeants or 50 horses and 2000 foot), let's say simply that the king of France has to outnumber the 700 Branbbant foot at least 3 to 1 to win.'

...meaning the author is ultimately one of the Historians who don't decide on or against the presence of 3000 Sergents (as the core of his article is actually about the tactics of the Brabants, not that of the French).

As to why le Breton would write 3000 mounted sergeants, I suspect it has to do with Latin prosody rather than reality. The Gesta is a prose work.

This is your opinion.
Some great historians think it was actually 3000 mounted sergents, others it wasn't...

However, that's not what matters.

[fogman]

Cite me some 'great historians' who believe that at the end of the battle, there were 3000 spare mounted sergeants. Or even at the beginning of the battle. Read Verbruggen.

[Athos1660]

Cite me some 'great historians' who believe that at the end of the battle, there were 3000 spare mounted sergeants. Or even at the beginning of the battle. Read Verbruggen.

You took me for Wikipedia or ChatGPT ?
Do your own research.
(Always research before stating things such as above...)
I don't like your tone.

[fogman]

red herring

[Athos1660]

red herring

No, it is not, fogman.

I will try to remain educational with you.

In an historical discussion, friendly and honest, if someone (me) say : "Some historians said this, others thought the contrary (that)", and someone else (you) say : "You are wrong, all the major historians say this", then it is this someone else (you)who must prove it. And for that, he needs to have done an honest research before stating 'You are wrong', not just picking one name of an historian, whoever this historian is. And he has to provide the outcome of his research and his bibliography. And if you had done an honest research, you actually couldn't say that I am wrong.

If you were really interesting in this debate, you'd have kindly asked me the name of these historians who did believe it was the mounted sergents who defeated the Brabants in order to read these articles/books, learn and make your own mind. And of course I'd have provided this list to you because I like sharing (I proved it...).

But not with this tone :

Cite me some 'great historians' who believe that at the end of the battle, there were 3000 spare mounted sergeants. Or even at the beginning of the battle. Read Verbruggen.

What you've tried to do in several previous posts of yours is just contradicting me without any evidence. I don't know why.

So what would be the next step, once I provide you the name of these historians, you saying "Verbruggen is greater, so I am right, you are wrong" ? No, thanks. You are free to post your opinion. I am free not to waste 2023 with trolls and 'experts after reading a single article (often not correctly)'.

Happy new year to all.

[fogman]

ad hominem. not a good look.