"Differences between Edward III and Henry V's forces" Topic

Could someone give me a rundown on the differences in terms of armament between HYW forces of these eras? I want to know about English and French both.

For knights and men-at-arms, the following would apply with transition from the Crecy-Poitiers era to the Agincourt era:

1.) Moving from partial plate armour to the first versions of full plate armour
2.) Reduction in the usage of shield, due to full plate armour making it largely unnecessary
3.) When fighting dismounted, heavy two-handed weapons (especially various polearms) would become more popular due to their effectiveness against improved armour

Similarly, the common footsoldier would be moving from the typical spear+shield combination towards usage of stout two-handed polearms of various types (bills, glaives, guisarmes etc.).

To be very brief (little time):

All of the above from Griefbringer.

Early HYW (silly expression):

Ratio of archers to men-at-arms: roughly 1:1

Later stages:

Ratio of archers 1:3 or more

Cheers,

Darrell.

Note; man-at-arms is an all encompassing term, not solely designating a knight but squires and other 'lesser' fighting men; they were expected to do the majority of the fighting, although, archers were certainly always involved in the melee too.

Cheers,

Darrell.

What sort of two handed weapons were used? Axes, mauls, swords? Anything else? Were one handed weapons in combat almost totally unheard of in Henry V's day, besides daggers etc. for killing downed knights?

What sort of two handed weapons were used? Axes, mauls, swords?

In early 15th century axes, hammers, swords, glaives, guisarmes, bills, and probably pretty much everything else with a heavy blade in the end of a moderately sized shaft.

I would recommend taking a look at the Perry twins Agincourt to Orleans range for some ideas of various weapons that were used.

Were one handed weapons in combat almost totally unheard of in Henry V's day, besides daggers etc. for killing downed knights?

Presumably any combatant would carry some sort of one-handed weapon as a back-up, in case they would loose their main weapon. However, if you were fighting on foot, then grabbing a two-handed weapon as your main armament was probably a good idea.

Actually used quite commonly was the cutdown lance in the mid 14th c -- both by the English and French dismounted knights. More so in fact than swords or axes or other hand weapons. That's why our first pack of foot knights for our upcoming Crecy range will have the cutdown lance.

Actually used quite commonly was the cutdown lance in the mid 14th c -- both by the English and French dismounted knights.

Very true.

Cheers,

Darrell.

How was the cutdown lance wielded? Like a spear? Im having a hard time picturing it.

AFAIK the cut-down lance was effectively pretty much equivalent to a spear.

AFAIK the cut-down lance was effectively pretty much equivalent to a spear.

Basically as a spear. Unlikely that it was used as a 'cutting' weapon. Much more likely to be a thrusting weapon. This may sound obvious but when you consider the somewhat rapid rise of polearms, that found ultimate expression in the poleaxe, used for concussion, thrusting and cutting, it's important to make that distinction.

Cheers,

Darrell.

Earlier English armies had Welsh auxiliaries (knifemen that happened to use spears too) and more hobilars (mounted spearmen): later English armies were men-at-arms and archers only (at least I can't recall exceptions).

The cut-down lances were wielded two-handed to make them more effective stabbing weapons. There were, even as late as Agincourt, a fair number of men-at-arms still using shields ("pavises") in the French army. And it seems that the English men-at-arms used their lances uncut, i.e. most of them had shields still (this would be natural, since their armies back home might face longbowmen at any time!) and used their lances single-handed, or with the shield hand through the grips to hold the lance in a static phalanx mode.

It should be noted that continental English armies were better quality than home-based ones: because the archers that went to campaign abroad were hand-picked, whereas at home a muster would turn out archers of any quality: and the average archer did not pull the same draw weight as the best archers did.

Early French armies used Italian and Spanish mercenaries; primarily crossbowmen and javelinmen. Later the crossbowmen tended to be French town militia, and the Italian mercenaries were mounted men-at-arms in the latest plate, man and horse.

The French never abandoned mounted attacks; it's just that at Agincourt (arguably the most famous HYW battle) they dismounted with the first two of three battles (even so, sending in mounted attacks on the wings as well). Later, at Verneuil, they used the Lombard men-at-arms to charge right through the English archers and out the back side (they then went off to pillage the English camp). Long after the HYW we still see French mounted attacks being made, even against Swiss pike blocks. So your HYW French army should contain a sizeable proportion of mounted troops as well as dismounted….

1066.us

And it seems that the English men-at-arms used their lances uncut,

I assume they would at the very least have removed the vamplate?

Cheers,

Darrell.

"It should be noted that continental English armies were better quality than home-based ones: because the archers that went to campaign abroad were hand-picked, whereas at home a muster would turn out archers of any quality: and the average archer did not pull the same draw weight as the best archers did."

Well, that's your view, eh Doug?

As you know, any nation of archers (mandated by law or national weapon, e.g. the horsearchers of the Steppes) is going to produce the entire spectrum of draw weights. Hell, even (the "better" sort of) women shoot bows like the men, but no way do they pull the same draw weights. In a general levy of a shire, fief or similar the archers will turn out with what they have. It was only the highly professional indentured armies that separated the "wheat from the chaff": and I think that the recruiting captains knew their job….

I think it's fair to say that in times of crisis and/or with the lack of enthusiasm for the war in France; with continued losses such as parts of Normandy and Gascony, that the overall quality of the archers may well have dimished. There are examples of Norman/French archers being indentured in 'English' armies, possibly due to the lack of quality archers available from England.

It is probably important to point out that the overall quality of the captains/officers, with some exceptions, most certainly diminished towards the end too.

Of course, this has only a slight bearing on the make-up of Edward III and Henry V's respective armies, but, it is worth pointing out nevertheless.

Cheers,

Darrell.

Hi

Or the revers, the English archers were so well paid, that when the wars ended, they sought work in italy and elsewhere.

rocky

The odd thing about professional soldiering is, the paymaster is foremost, the cause second (if it matters at all). I don't doubt that French archers fought in English armies, and even shot at French men-at-arms; and visa-versa for English archers. The recruiting captains wanted reliable, skilled soldiers; their "nationality" was non existent; their place of birth not a consideration, and their agreement to the contract for a given campaign all-important….

There are examples of Norman/French archers being indentured in 'English' armies, possibly due to the lack of quality archers available from England.

For logistical purposes, it sounds a lot easier to rise part of your forces from your continental fiefs closer to the area of operations than shipping everybody from England. And there were apparently some perfectly good archers available in certain areas of France.

As for the "Englishness" of the armies, remember that they were led by men who believed themselves to be rightful kings of France, who ruled effectively parts of continental France, and who had a habit of marrying French noblewomen.

As for the "Englishness" of the armies, remember that they were led by men who believed themselves to be rightful kings of France, who ruled effectively parts of continental France, and who had a habit of marrying French noblewomen.

I agree. Thus the punctuation; 'English' :0)

Cheers,

Darrell.