In what way were Renaissance battles like chess matches?

Question

I have been reading Ross King's Brunelleschi's Dome: The Story of the Great Cathedral in Florence. Although the book is well documented, it has an astonishing passage for which the author provides no source. The context is a war between Florence and Milan. At that time, Milan was ruled by the Duke Filippo Maria Visconti; he is the person mentioned in the first sentence of what follows.

The following year, as plague raged through Tuscany, his forces defeated the Florentines at Zagonara, in Romagna. There were only three casualties, all Florentine soldiers who fell from their horses and drowned on the battlefield in their heavy plate armour (it had rained heavily in Zagonara the night before). This lack of bloodshed shows that warfare in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, contrary to popular misconceptions, could be reasonably civilized. Most battles resembled chess matches in which opposing commanders sought to outmanoeuvre each other, the loser being the one who conceded that his position was technically vulnerable. These engagements were fought by mercenaries who setted the terms of warfare, rather like sportsmen deciding the rules of a game.

Is this description accurate? If it is, where can I learn more about this way of waging wars?

Answer 1

The claim comes from Machiavelli, and, for example, this site criticizes it. In this case, Machiavelli was arguing in favor of training militias instead of using mercenary forces. A similar case is Battle of Anghiari, where it is claimed that only one man died. This Wikipedia article offers some explanations:

1. The casualties were indeed light, as condottieri (mercenary knights, captains of mercenary companies) were paid as long as the war lasted, so they were not keen to fight to the death (or destruction of their company) or to decisively defeat the enemy. Also they considered opposing mercenaries as comrades and did not aim to kill a lot of them. Also, a captured knight could be ransomed, so capturing was more profitable than killing them. See Wikipedia article on Condottieri for their military style. Also this forum has some interesting discussion on the warfare of that period.
2. Machiavelli and other historians counted only mounted knights as casualties, foot soldiers were not counted. It was common for medieval historians. For example, at Battle of Crécy French knights (or men-at-arms for that matter) casualties were counted in the battlefield and reported in many chronicles (with discrepancies of course), while there are only rough estimates for common foot soldiers.

As for why was there more attention to knights / men-at-arms / condottieri casualties then to infantry, there may be several factors:

1. Class distinctions. Those who owned a properly trained horse and full armor were likely rich and noble-born, and foot soldiers were little more than armed peasants. For example, Livonian Order chronicle recounts losses in Battle on the Ice as “Twenty brothers lay dead and six were captured”, explicitly counting only full members of the order.
2. Cavalry was considered decisive power on the battlefield throughout the Middle Ages, its numbers and losses were the most important information on the battle, especially considering how long it took to train both man and horse.
3. Each knight was a leader of his personal troop called Lances fournies of infantry, archers, mounted squires, etc, bound to him with feudal obligations. Mounted member of this troop were supposed to follow the knight to battle and protect him; if the knight ended up dead it was likely most of them were cut down too. Also, the survivors held no direct obligations to the lord who called up the knight to battle, he would have to deal with deceased knight’s heirs now. See Wikipedia article on medieval recruiting. As for Condottieri, they were leaders of mercenary companies, it was they who brokered the deals with employers and distributed the payment to the soldiers, with their death the whole deal was off. I didn’t find what usually happened in this case, but logically soldiers could choose a new leader who then might change the allegiance, or just disband and join other companies.