Was medieval warfare effective

Answer 1

in its own right, yes. just as modern warfare is effective for fighting a modern war.

medieval warfare you needed more technique and skill in modern war you learn how to hold a gun and who not to shoot but either way the first asnwer was right i ujst wanted to throw that in there

Answer

It was effective throughout the medieval period when it suited the technology they had at the time but it would not be effective in modern warfare against modern technology.

For example, a knight in full plate armour throughout the middle ages was feared on the battlefield as his armour could withstand alot of what was dished out to it and a heavy cavalry charge could devastate infantry ranks. Nowadays though, it is likely that a single soldier with a submachine gun could take down a whole unit of charging knights as their armour simply could not withstand a modern bullet.

AnswerOf course, when determining if a style of combat, type of equipment, and tactics used is effective, one must compare it to others in contemporary use. You can't compare them between different time periods.

In general, European Medieval warfare was effective, if modestly inefficient. The weapons and armor used were suitable to the task, and could both protect and inflict injuries without excessive problems. Tactics, however, were mostly very primitive, with the English-French battle of Agincourt being perhaps the most tactically advanced battle fought in the timeperiod. And, siegecraft was long and drawn out, often requiring years to successfully take strategic strongpoints.

However, when compared with other contemporary warfare methods, European Medieval warfare was less effective. The various Ottoman and other Muslim forces of Middle Eastern cultures were generally more successful against European foes, than the opposite, despite having comparable technology levels. They were not decisively better, however, and superior European numbers (particularly in sieges) could overcome some deficiencies in European tactical prowess.

When the Mongols showed up, though, the complete inadequacy of European tactical warfare was exposed. The Mongols were slightly technologically inferior (with little metal-making production ability), but were vastly more advanced in tactics and strategy. No Medieval European force of ANY size was able to defeat an opposing Mongol force, with the vast majority of battles being very significant defeats for the Europeans, despite the Mongols often being outnumbered. For Europeans still fought as warriors - that is, combat was a mob of individuals, seeking individual combat contests. The Mongols, on the other hand, understood small unit tactics, where groups of soldiers (not warriors - look up the difference) fought together as a unit to achieve a goal, not seek individual glory in 1-on-1 contests. Soldiers will alwaysdefeat warriors, unless ridiculously outnumbered.