ARMIES, MEDIA:VAL. The downfall of the Roman empire marked the dividing-point between ancient and medimval times in military matters, as well as in other things that concern the existence of nations. The barbarians and semi-barbarians who attacked on all sides the once mighty but now degenerate empire, gradually gained possession of the vast regions which had composed it. The mode in which these conquests were made gave rise to the feudal system (q.v.). What all had aided to acquire by conquest, all demanded to share in proportions more or less equal. Hence arose a division of the con quered territory; lands were held from the chief by feudal tenure, almost in independent sovereignty. When European kingdoms were gradually formed out of the wrecks of the empire, the military arrangements put on a peculiar form. The king could not main tain a standing army, for his barons or feudal chieftains were jealous of allowing him too much power. lie could only strengthen himself by obtaining their aid on certain terms, or by allowing them to weaken themselves in intestine broils, to which they had always much proneness. Each baron had a small army composed of his own militia or retainers, available for battle at short notice. The contests of these small armies, some times combined and sometimes isolated, make up the greater part of the wars of the middle ages. Of military tactics or strategy, there was very little; the campaigns were desultory and indecisive; and the battles were gained more by individual valor than by any well-concerted plan.
One great exception to this military feudality was furnished by the crusades (q.v.). So far asconcerns A., however, in theirorganization and discipline, these expeditions effected but little. 'rue military forces which went to the Holy Land were little better than armed mobs, upheld by fanaticism, but not at all by science or discipline. Numbers and individual bravery were left to do the work, combination and forethought being dis regarded.
A much greater motive-power for change, during the middle ages, was the invention of gunpowder. When men could fight at a greater distance than before, and on a sys tem which brought mechanism to the aid of valor, everything connected with the mili tary art underwent a revolution. Historically, however, this great change was not very apparent until after the period usually denominated the middle ages. The art of mak ing good cannon and hand guns grew up gradually, like other arts; and A. long con tinued to depend principally on the older weapons—spears, darts, arrows, axes, maces, swords, and daggers.
During the greater part of the 14th and 15th centuries, the chief A. were those main tained by the Spaniards and the Moors on one European battle-ground, by the English and the French on another, and by the several Italian republics on a third. In those A., the cavalry were regarded as the chief arm. The knights and their horses alike were frequently covered with plate or chain armor; and the offensive weapons were lances, swords, daggers, and battle-axes. A kind of light cavalry was sometimes formed of archers on smaller horses. As to army formation, there was still little that could deserve the name; there was no particular order of battle; each knight sought how he could best distinguish himself by personal valor; and to each was usually attached an esquire, abet ting him as a second during the contest. Sometimes it even happened that the fate of a battle was allowed to depend on a combat between two knights. No attempt was made, until towards the close of the 15th c., to embody a system of tactics and maneuvers for cavalry; and even that attempt was of the most -primitive kind. Nor was it far other wise with the foot-soldiers; they were gradually becoming acquainted with the use of firearms; but, midway as it were between two systems, they observed neither completely; and the A. in which they served presented very little definite organization.