I agree the discussion between Fusilier and I has become a little bit too scattered and maybe slightly too heated, but we both respect each other and we have both remained civil. I also think some of the points under contention here are very interesting and a few are even pretty important.

And I've also learned a few things such as about these semi-professional militias in Milan and Venice.

Maybe we can try to pare down the tendrils of this discussion into the key points where we seem to disagree.

1) Were part - time militias just as effective as ostensibly full - time mercenaries (and were mercenaries actually full-time?)


2) How did fighting effectiveness improve in Medieval armies? How did Medieval warriors learn to use better tactics and more sophisticated weapons?


3) Did militia actually decline in just in some towns in Italy or everywhere in Europe? And if so, when and why?


4) Was the reason for the purported decline, as Fusilier has shown us that Mallett seems to be saying, somehow related to the introduction of complex weapons like crossbows and in the use of metal and / or plate armor contributing ?

#1 is kind of hard to prove either way definitively though I think we could learn something and have some fun pursing it (it would take some time) I think #2 is a really interesting and important question. #3 is worth looking at a bit further but again, it will take some time. #4 can help us ground the debate in reality a bit more perhaps with somewhat left effort.

Does this sound like a reasonable summary?

I'd like to reach something close to a consensus before I make any effort to clarify my positions further since I have (frustratingly!) very limited computer access for the next few days since I'm stuck at a conference right now.

G