Can we talk about Western European medieval military organization?

>>2423331
Medieval armies are literally organized in this manner.
>You.
>You and your given income must furnish me- the King- men for wars.
>I dunno what kind of units you'll bring, just dump em in the main army when imma muster my forces.

Did medieval armies have ranks, like corporals sergeants captains etc

>>2423331
>Namely: how the fuck is it done?
Haphazardly. Quite often armies would just form up in one big block and charge.

However, that isn't to say that medieval armies never had any organisation. On the level of the entire army, the line would often be split into three 'battles', i.e. left, centre and right, each under their own commander. On a unit to unit level, there were no rules for units because it depended entirely how many men each lord or knight brought. Generally I assume every basic soldier would try to stick with the lord who brought him, although in the chaos of fighting it would be easy to get mingled with the rest of the troops in the same 'battle'.

>Shouldnt they just form units around individual lords & commanders instead?
you would get many different lords fighting in the same 'battle'. Some lords would have only brought a few dozen men, others would have brought a few hundred. There might be dozens of different lords in the same army, each with contingents of completely different sizes, so obviously it wouldn't be useful to have all those units operating independently of each other. As I said, there would be three main units (battles), and there might be a vanguard as well, and the diverse forces that made up the average medieval army would be clumped into one of these.

As for ranks, the term 'sergeant' originally just meant a professional common soldier, but I imagine it got its current meaning because in a situation where a lot of semi-skilled peasants were fighting the professionals would get put in charge of the rabble.

As for how this worked on the battlefield: your contingent, led by your lord, would get put in a 'battle'. You'd be able to see the standard of the 'battles' commander. Basically all you have to do is stick as close to that standard as you can as it advances, and clobber any of the enemy that come within reach. It's not a complicated business, at least not the way that medieval generals usually fought their wars.

>>2423356
Sergeant was literally a medieval term.

However it wasn't a rank: it simply meant "servant" but back in the day, it was what you call a professional, non mercenary, salary'd soldier serving under a lord.

>>2423331
>>2423453
Also, if you're wondering whether the multiple coats of arms on the same side led to friendly fire incidents, yes it did. At the Battle of Barnet, a pivotal battle in the wars of the roses, one lancastrian force managed to open fire on another because it confused its coat of arms with the Yorkist king's emblem. As cries of treachery spread along the line the entire Lancastrian army panicked, and one of the most important commanders of the wars of the Roses - Richard Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker - was killed in the ensuing route.

Also, on the subject of ranks, if a Lord felt the need to split his force into smaller units the command would probably be arranged on a personal basis. So instead of having a captain leading a company, a hundred men would be assigned to the Lord's eldest son, or his most trusted knight, or whatever. The point being that instead of there being the title of 'captain', and anyone holding it being interchangeable with any other captain, command would be organised on an ad hoc basis according to the personal whims of the overall commander.

>>2423331
Soldiers showed up and were formed into formations completely with banners, officers and musicians like almost every army of the day.

Formations were actually relatively standard.

File: Urban_Militia_by_Rufus_Jr.jpg (178KB, 948x842px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 948x842px

>>2423356
Urban Militias did. This was so largely because a lot of medieval cities were self-ruling entities due to the lack of an overall feudal lord you see, unlike provincials with their lords.

As such, unlike lords with their knights an private armies, cities had to organize their own defense. Which meant that they have to form up a militia composed of their own citizens. Now this wasn't some pitchfork wielding rabble: Citizens bought their own military gear, or their guild would pool money to buy everyone weapons and armor, or richer citizens and urban nobles outfitted themselves as urban cavalry. In addition, they had formal drill and training. Some cities have laws that often dictate that each citizen had to leave their job temporarily and serve in a militia for a fixed term, usually as watchmen patrolling the city or participating in drills. So the result would be a semi-professional part time soldier moulded out of a regular-ass citizen.

Since cities are often ruled by a council of burghers - basically every important cunt in town (usually guild heads, rich citizens, and urban nobles), this also reflected their command structure during war time. Upon mustering the militia, units are usually organized around neighborhoods/districts, guilds, or social strata. Reflecting their rather democratic lifestyle, the militias often chose who gets to captain their particular unit (usually enough: the guild head), while the burghers pick among themselves who gets overall command.

Due to their semi-professional training, militias are often pulled out of cities to join the realm's overall army on campaign. As such the guy who shows up before the king is an elected commander, rather than a feudal lord as the rest of the king's army has.

>>2423356
Leaders of a group of 100 were called something like Captain or Cenetar while officers of 20 were called vinetars.

Trying to find my source on this but I pulled that from muster rolls.