Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
Well, I assumed it was an associated device since Italy is the only place I know of where they pulled war wagons with oxen.

As for the rest of it on #4, I think you and I just need to disagree. I think it's patently obvious that not only miltiias could handle technology and new tactics, they actually introduced probably at least half of the most important military innovations of the 14th-16th Centuries, both in terms of equipment (I mentioned several specific examples, though I could elaborate further, I didn't think it was necessary) and tactics (same).

Furthermore, if Mallet thinks plate armor or heavy crossbows were somehow new to the world during the rise of the Conditerri, I think he's lacking in basic understanding of war in that period at the individual / micro-level (which wouldn't be unusual).

By "old data" I mean, that guy published in an era in which a lot of the military history is now considered dated by Academia, but I'm not an expert on Italy by a long shot and I'm not about to start a crash course on it. If you really want some other books to read there are some classics and a lot of new work, I could ask a buddy who is an expert to recommend some things.

G
While, his work may be a bit dated -- you haven't really refuted anything with data. It appears that you just have a different "impression" of things.

As for condottiere companies shrinking, that trend was gone by the 15th century. The contracts were too long-term to allow it to happen, and the increasingly frequency of mercenaries being activated during the winter season would have made it impractical. I'll have to go through Mallett with a fine toothed comb, I have vague memories of some examples of captains being fined for failing to maintain the contracted number of mercenaries.

You are correct, that experience can be trumped up by tactics and numbers -- but the condottiere period allowed the mercenaries to develop pretty sophisticated tactics. And in a sense, it's that *experience*, that allows experimentation with different tactics.

As for weapons -- I think you may have misinterpreted what I said about them. Most importantly I still get the feeling that you believe the only thing that matters with a weapon is personal prowess -- at which point you would be right, militia could handle the weapons just as well as mercenaries.

As for his data about weapons being outdated, it's not really evident, because those details don't bear too much on the discussion. I.e. Condottiere used field artillery, crossbows, handguns, and their heavy cavalry was very well armored. If you want to quibble over weather or not militia cavalry could be just as well armored as a mercenary company, then fine. It doesn't detract from the overall argument, that the Condottiere were experimenting with new weapons, which the militias certainly would have access to, and new tactics.

Finally, if militia could could be on par with mercenaries, why would Venice -- who are generally agreed to have some of the best trained militia -- have hired mercenary infantry on long term contracts?

From an academia standpoint, I know of no better work on the subject. If you have something to recommend, or can dig something up, I would be most interested. It's possible that new information may state that the militia impact on Italian warfare was larger in the mid-15th century than previously thought, and that the militia was very capable. But, so far, I haven't been able to find anything to that effect, and Mallet's research is very thorough.