"Billmen and Aketons" Topic

I have several questions about English billmen and aketons during the hundred years war and War of the Roses.

Were the mass of English billmen deployed with the Men at Arms? Were some billmen deployed with the Archers and light infantry as support? Or were Billmen deployed entirely as separate organizations?

The english had large numbers of billmen during the 1400s. Were large numbers found amonst other european armies such as the French, Germans, Low Countries, etc?

Did the Welsh field billmen amonst their standard light infantry spearmen?

When did the aketon first appear? Apparently they were very common amonst English billmen during the War of the Roses but were they also common during the Hundred Years War? Was there a common color for the aketon or did they appear in the full range of colors?

Thanks in advance!

The Akheton, specifically, is the garment worn underneath armor. What you are referring to is more specifically the Gambeson (not sure of the specific differences, but the nomenclature at least differentiaties them). The Gambeson was a very common form of armor, in use at least as far back as the 11th C. Althogh it is just a padded garment, it provided surprisingly good (or at least moreso than expected) protecton from sword slashes and the like. During the HYW, some troops might wear it as a "layerd" defence (i.e. worn over mail), but this was typically up to the individual's finances or scrounging ability.

Damon.

"Were the mass of English billmen deployed with the Men at Arms? Were some billmen deployed with the Archers and light infantry as support? Or were Billmen deployed entirely as separate organizations?"

IMHO, billmen were deployed with the MAA. Indeed, it is my view that both billmen and MAA were deployed along with archers in the same body. Such contemporary accounts of WOTR battles as we have do not imply that either billmen/MAA or archers were deployed in separate units. There is an example of a body of archers deployed in the town centre at 2nd St Albans, but this was a specific defensive arrangement in a built up area rather than a field deployment.

What "light infantry"?

"Were the mass of English billmen deployed with the Men at Arms? Were some billmen deployed with the Archers and light infantry as support? Or were Billmen deployed entirely as separate organizations?"

OK. What are they?

Generally speaking, MAA were knights and gentry (J. Paston was a lawyer serving as a MAA) in debt to their master in the aristocracy. Most billmen and archers were the retinue of MAA. That is, they were men who were in the debt to MAA and their master in the aristrocracy. Consequently, being 'owned men' they fought as a single entity under the banner of their master.

It may be, that when the archery shower was to begin the archers stepped forward of the MAA and billmen to shhot more easily. On the approach of enemy MAA and billmen they might retire behind them, but in wargames terms, especially for morale, they should be treated as one unit.

MAA should be seen as the 'big men' fighting among the billmen. Being heavily armoured they would do most of the up front work. I once wrote a set of rules for WoR where this kind of deployment was called 'stiffened bills'.

As for armour. Most billmen would wear the best kit, possibly looted over time, possibly by being issued munition armour by their masters, they could get their hands on. There should be no uniformity here. The same, to a lesser degree, is true of retinue archers.

Shire levy – the plebs – would have less armour and Akhetons, being cheap and easily massed produced, might, and with luck, predominate. But remember, most WoR battles were fought using only MAA and retinue because it was they, being professional / semi-professional who could be banked on to show up and fight well.

To echo Mr. Snorbens – what light infantry?

When did the aketon first appear? Apparently they were very common amonst English billmen during the War of the Roses but were they also common during the Hundred Years War? Was there a common color for the aketon or did they appear in the full range of colors?

1. They were copied from similar garments worn by the 'saracen' and found their way into western armies not long after the First Crusade. they would be very commen after about 1200.

2. They were usually made of tow stuffed linen. Most would be undyed. This is real mass produced munition quality stuff.

The english had large numbers of billmen during the 1400s. Were large numbers found amonst other european armies such as the French, Germans, Low Countries, etc?

Infantry armed with polearms (halberds, glaives, guisarmes etc.) was pretty common all around Europe in the 15th century. However, bill in particular seems to have been less common in continent than in England, where it apparently was the dominating type of polearm.

For Wars of the Roses I recommend these two books. Out of the 30 odd books I have on the subject these are the best for general military information:

The Wars of the Roses by Anthony Goodman. ISBN 0-415-05264-5

The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses by Andrew W. Boardman. ISBN 0-7509-1465-3

Hi

Aketon is derived from the word for Cotton in arabic. Thus, the term enters during the crusades.

Like most weapons, the "bill" is an agricultural weapon. Most troops use things derived from hunting spears, as far as I know, only the british used "bills" which is originally for pruning trees.

Wargame confusion is often based on old wargaming terms derived from napoleonic ideas in wargaming. Thus, a "light troop" is different in napoloeonic parlence than "light" in renaissance italy. In fact, most armies have troops that have "state of the art" armor, and troops with less. So, "light" can mean "close order infantry that fights like the heavies but with less equipment" or it might mean "skirmish troops who screen an advance.

Pick your poison.

Rocky

"Billmen" is just the Anglo version of "halberdiers" or any number of other two-handed staff weapons that could be wielded either like spears or axes or even hammers. The shape and origin of the blade is immaterial to a discussion of deployment and use.

English armies from the HYW through WotR do not substantially change either in their organization or composition. And it is clear that archers were typically organized separately from men-at-arms or other non-missile infantry: centenars and vintenars (captains of 100 and 20) are mentioned in the sources when speaking of units of archers. That such companies might be interspersed between companies of infantry is certainly possible but such details cannot be said to be either consistent or reliable. It should be good enough to mass figures on the table in mixed units or discrete units of archers, men-at-arms or billmen. Player's choice. Since that choice seems to have been up to the real life commanders of the day.

"Light infantry" would be any body of infantry loosely arrayed to fight as individuals. In other words a skirmish line. "Heavy infantry" is any infantry arrayed in a dense body and in depth intending to engage in physical contact. This of course is entirely a different thing than a designation of light or heavy infantry based on the amount of armor protection worn.

"English armies from the HYW through WotR do not substantially change either in their organization or composition."

A HYW English army generally had a far higher proportion of archers compared to an equivalent sized WOTR army.

"And it is clear that archers were typically organized separately from men-at-arms or other non-missile infantry: centenars and vintenars (captains of 100 and 20) are mentioned in the sources when speaking of units of archers."

Don't dispute that, but you'll agree that companies of archers commanded by centenars or vintenars are "low level organisation". In other words, a bit like the companies in a Napoleonic infantry battalion. In practice a number of such companies of both billmen/MAA and archers combined to form a "battle" on the field that moved and operated as single entity.

""Light infantry" would be any body of infantry loosely arrayed to fight as individuals. In other words a skirmish line."

I am not aware of any contemporary source that would support the use of such a skirmish line in any battle of the WOTR.

By the late 15th Century the various forms of padded & layered armour made of cloth are most commonly called "Jacks" in the English sources(with the usual variations of the spelling). (Another trm used is "doublet of fence i.e doublet of defence) Basicly you get two variations. Either a garment made of multiple layers of linnen cloth. Or one stuffed with raw cotton. Doubtlessly there has existedother variations but these are the ones that a completly verified by a combination of written sources as well as extant examples.

Two good short essays on the subject:
PDF link
PDF link

A webpage (in Swedish) with a recreated Jack made of linnen and stuffed with raw cotton.
link

A few old pics of my own Jack which is made of 20 layers of linnen cloth.
picture
picture
picture

Thanks all for the good information!

As to the light infantry, I am referring to lightly armored spear infantry such as the Welsh, Gascons or French infanry. So basically massed spear infantry poorly armored. Apparently the Welsh spearmen were described as bare leggged with a cloak, shield and spear during some HYW actions. I suspect some bills may have stiffened their formations. I could see small attachments of billmen beefing up light infantry and archers while the mass served with the MAA.

A HYW English army generally had a far higher proportion of archers compared to an equivalent sized WOTR army.

I thougth the proportion of Archers to MAA was much higher in a WOTR army than a continental HYW army. Somewhere I remember reading somewhere a ratio of 7 archers to 1 for WOTR and 3 archers to 1 for HYW army.

I also found a reference in Armies of the Middle Ages to the aketon-gambion-jack as having colors of blue, red, pink, mauve, brown, buff, yellow and green as well as parti-colored. MAA were more likely to have extreme parti-colored while infantry had more subdued colors. Mauve??? What is mauve color? For those curious…it is dirty pink or shade of purple.

"As to the light infantry, I am referring to lightly armored spear infantry such as the Welsh, Gascons or French infanry."

So not in the WOTR then.

"I thought the proportion of Archers to MAA was much higher in a WOTR army than a continental HYW army. Somewhere I remember reading somewhere a ratio of 7 archers to 1 for WOTR and 3 archers to 1 for HYW army."

Don't know where you read that. The ratio of archers to MAA at Agincourt was 5:1 possibly higher. The ratio of archers to billmen/MAA in the WOTR was nearer 1:1.

"I also found a reference in Armies of the Middle Ages to the aketon-gambion-jack as having colors of blue, red, pink, mauve, brown, buff, yellow and green as well as parti-colored. MAA were more likely to have extreme parti-colored while infantry had more subdued colors."

MAA in the WOTR, being in full harness, would not be wearing a jack. Billmen would though and if they were members of a lord's retinue then they would likely have parti-coloured jacks in the livery colours of their lord, as also would retinue archers. Men raised by commission of array would either have livery colours for the geographical location they were from or single colours of what ever was available.

Actually the evidence for billmen in English armies of the 1400's is at conflicting. There is certainly not anythign which remotely resembles clear evidence for large numbers of billmen. Indeed the one question that keeps popping up when you read the sources is "Where are the billmen?".

Retinue Billmen
Billmen are very hard (almost impossible actually) to find in the written sources connected with the Retinues of the period For example the army which went to France
in 1475 did not contain a single man listed as a "billman".
Only Men-at-arms and archers and the ratio
of archers to men-at-arms was very high, almost 8-1 which is quite similar to many of the forces raised for service in France in the final years of the HYW. The expeditionary armies crossing into France from England in 1440-1450 had ratios of 3:1 to 20:1, the classic ratio of 3 archers to each man-at-arms only appearing in small (300-400man) forces after
1444. Once again no men listed as billmen appear in these documents.

One argument raise is that the billmen do not appear because they were infact listed as "archers" in the indentures and muster rolls. "Archer" being little more than another word for "soldier". David Grummit argues that

" The term archer, as used in the account and muster rolls of the early fifteenth century, merely referred to those soldiers who received 6d a day if on foot and 8d a day if mounted and were to be differentiated socially from the men at arms. It says nothing of their armament or their tactical deployment."

The problem Dr. Grummit's argument is that he does not explain why all the muster rolls & indentures which do list the equipment describe the equipment of actual archers. None found so far describe the equipment of a billman.

So what about other sources?

Formigny 1450 is usually held up of as an example of the use
billmen in the last years of the HYW. However the source is ambigious at best, Robert Blondel wrote in Latin and the actual word he used was "gladiatores" (roughly "swordsmen") How and why this has been translated to "billmen" I've so far been unable to find out. It could well be that Blondel was merly projecting French practice on the English. (Each French man-at-arms was supported by a Coustilier (roughly translates to "swordsman")
So Blondel's description of Formigny is a fascinating but ambigious sources which is not easy to interpret due to the language used.

For the WOTR period there is the Houshold accounts of Lord
John Howard. The record how he issued both arms & armour to his retainers, unfortunately most retainers provided their own arms so when it comes to arms the accounts lack the numerous detailed examples they provide for the armour. That said the number of bows issued outnumber the bills about 3-1. Is it a mere coincidence that ration between bow and bill is the "classic" ratio of men-at-arms to archers in the HYW? Could it be that the billmen were infact a substitute for the increasingly expensive men-at-arms?

(Of course just because a man was issue a bill he need not be a billman. Archers were commonly issued with polearms such as pollaxes when performing the duties of "Watch and ward". And may well have gone into battle "double armed". More on that below))

Howard's account's also reveal just how well armoured retainers could be. The common issue was a sallet, a brigandine, a 'standard' of mail for the neck & troat, mail sleeves and leg armour. With that amount of armor a retainer was almost as well protected as many 14th century men-at-arm. Indeed his head, chest and legs were better protected as steel had replaced iron. (Though he still wore munitions grade items, not top quality)

'Arrayed' billmen
So what about the men raised by commision of array?

The Bridport muster roll is often held up as evidence for the existence of numerous billmen. The roll lists the inhabitants as armed with 114 longbows, 11 glaives, 10 pollaxes, 10 axes, 5 spears and 3 bills (Not to mention swords, daggers and a few lead mauls). So obviously we have 114 archers and 39 men with various polearms? That is indeed how most published works present the Bridport rolls content. However if you actually read the roll you'll find that 69% of the various polearms belonged to men armed with longbows(!).

Then there is the muster roll for the Ewelme half-hundred which records the men raised by 17 villages in Oxfordshire.
It seems to suggest that archers were in short supply indeed as only 17 of 85 men were listed with bows. And men are listed as "being able to do the King's service with a bill". However men with bills & bows are outnumbered by the men without any weapons at all. (the roll is first and foremost a list of equipment owned) Over all it is another hard to interpret document as it has been used to support both the "few archers" and "many archers" arguments depending on how it is used together with other sources.

Various other sources
There is Mancini's eyewitness account of troops employed by Richard of Gloucester in 1483. Not a word about bills or billmen. Only archers.

Lightly equipped billmen are also absent from the images of the The Beauchamp Pageant (aka Rous Roll) which is considered the formost and most acccurate pictorial source as far as the arms & armour of late 15th Century English soldiers is concerned. The men shown armed with bills are quite heavily armoured.

link
action=view¤t=beau1detail.jpg
link
action=view¤t=beau2detail.jpg
link
action=view¤t=beau3.jpg

What about the Strykland roll?
The so called Strykland Roll is often held up as the best evidence of the existence of billmen in the WOTR period. It is the main source for the notion that WOTR armies fielded archers & billmen at a 1:1 ratio.
You can find it as a part of PDF link
(Page 7-9)
At first this looks straight forward but this quote from David Key suggest that the muster roll might not at all be connected to the indenture.

how does this explain the Strickland Muster with it's references to Billmen and more even ratios?

Well, it made me curious since an Indenture with associated Muster would indeed be exceptional, even unique and the coincidence that it was one of the only indentures for which both halves survive … almost beyond belief. So I took a look at the words. The style and language of the Indenture is standard mid-fifteenth century. The Muster is far more Tudor. When I inquired about this I was informed by the owner that the date on the muster roll is for Henry VIII not Henry VI. Now I need to actually check that we are talking about the same roll, but assuming it is … then the transcription is not wrong, it is simply misdated. A date of Henry VIII would make the content and style entirely normal, and, I'm afraid, remove it as evidence for WotR's "Billmen" as a term.

Conclusion
Because of the possible misinterpretaions of the Strykland documents and other factors is it possible, even likely IMHO that the Tudor large scale usage of billmen has been projected back onto the WOTR period.
Now there is no doubt that the bill was used as weapon on the WOTR battlefield, the question is by who and in what numbers?

The `lightly equipped' retinue billman found in many army lists may very well not have existed at all as a separate trooptype. (At the very least not in the numbers assumed by many wargames rules & reenactors.) Rather the sources seem to suggest that if he existed he was part of a smaller number of well equipped men who served as a substitute for men-at-arms in full white harness. The Howard retainers were certainly well protected and most of the bill armed men in the 1483 Beauchamp chronicle (aka Rous roll) wear eaven heavier heavy armour than the Howard retainers even if they do not posses the full plate harness of a proper man-at-arms.

The 'arrayed men' shows much better evidence for men going into action only with bills but the number is difficult to estime due to the very varied content of the two sources available.

IMHO most wargames rules seem to want to separate the missile troops from the melee troops. However in the case of the English archers the line between the two may well not exist. Well equipped retainers such as Lord Howard's men would have done sterling service in close combat after their arrows were spent. Armed with sword & buckler, longsword or even polearms they would have had a real impact on the outcome of any melee.

The men raised by Commission of Array would have lacked the experience and equipment of the retainers but the Bridport muster at least shows that many of the archers owned polearms as well. in the case of one archer whose arms were bow, pollaxe and dagger I find it hard to belive that he would have left the pollaxe at home if called out to fight.

Now I don't expect a lot of converts to the alternate versions of the make up of WOTR armies . My main aim is to point out the problems that are found in the sources and that the current interpretation rest of fairly flimsy fundations. Indeed a lot is based on single source which may not even be from the WOTR period.

It's unlikely that the Jacks were in colour as linen is almost impossible to dye with 15th Century methods. There are some references to jacks with a outerlayer of coloured cloth such a fustian but then it's a question of items for men of high status such as Lord Howard.

And if the jacks were in livery colours there would have been no need to issue livery jackets yet the sue of such jackets (made of wool or even finer cloths which can be dyed) was standard among the troops using liveries. Which find these jackets in addition to the padded Jakcs in England, France and Burgundy.

So some fine Jacks would have had a coloured outer layer but the vast majority would have been natural or white linen, or possibly leather.

I don't know about other rules but in our army lists for English armies of this period, "billmen", "hobilars" and "spear" are non specific terms to help visualize the various non archer infantry. There is no expectation that "billmen" are some special class of troop in discrete units.

To expect archers to behave like pole armed or spear armed infantry when not using their bows is a huge stretch, imho. They melee as well as any other light troops, but they are not some kind of catch-all trooper who can shoot an attacking enemy then brace to receive the charge….

1066.us

Except of course that an archer kited out in sallet, brigandine, partial plate leg harness and mail for the arms and throat hardly qualifys as "light troops". He's better armoured than Harold's Huscarls at Hastings to make a comparison.

And there is a reason why 69% of the Bridport archers owned a polearm as well as bow and sword or dagger.

How well can an archer use his longbow with heavy armor? I assumed a longbowman had to balance between protection and freedom of movement to use his bow effectively. Thus longbowmen were relatively lightly armored vs MAA.

The key area is the arms, it is possible to shoot in the kind of almost full plate harness such as that worn by the French & Burgundian archers of the Guard.
picture
But even a well trained man tires rather quickly if he tries to mantain the usual rate of fire.
That's why mail was the most common metal armour for the arms among archers. Mail is actually less cumbersome than a Jack as 25-30 layers of linen takes some effort to move.

Most men on the battle field are "lightly armoured" compared to a late 15th Century MAA but that is because they were extraodinarily well armoured. My point was that the the Retinue archers were quite well armoured compared to the archers of Crecy or the Huscarls of 1066.

QUOTING DANIEL S: Except of course that an archer kited out in sallet, brigandine, partial plate leg harness and mail for the arms and throat hardly qualifys as "light troops". He's better armoured than Harold's Huscarls at Hastings to make a comparison.

==
Because bows break, and battle doesn't stop for rain :p

Daniel, are you a member of myArmoury? I swear I've seen your kit before.

M.

"It's unlikely that the Jacks were in colour as linen is almost impossible to dye with 15th Century methods."

Thanks Daniel, I didn't know that!

And there is a reason why 69% of the Bridport archers owned a polearm as well as bow and sword or dagger.

Just because 69% of the polearms belonged to archers, does not mean that 69% of the archers were armed with polearms.

Dividing 27 polearms amongst 114 archers would mean that only 24% of them would be armed with the polearms.

Griefbringer, you are quite correct , I should not write long texts or try to do math in the middle of the night. The point I was badly trying to get across is that if 69% of the available polearms belonged to men already armed as archers then that ownership was most probabbly deliberate in nature.

Hi

Hmmmm. Not really my period, but I read a lot. I have noted that "billman" are often more common in english tertiary sources from some hundred years ago. Thought it was more a "romantic" term than real. THEY have professionals, WE have common men with agricultural tools. A variant of the "British Pluck".

could be wrong.

As for dying. By modern standards, no. But "Rit Color Fast dye" isn't the point either. Virtually all died cloth didn't dye well but people did it. And we have other examples of using ink to color. Or actually painting the cloth. And with a quilted jack, the term is vague enough that it might be as simple as actually QUILTING from smaller bits of cloth. I suppose you might be gaming with someone who "knows" for certain that all your troops must be bland brown or he won't game with you. but absent better information, I am unsure that there is something worth arguing about.

Rocky

Rocky,
Linen is in a leauge of it's own when it comes to being difficult to dye, wool silk and cottons take the dye far better. Sure the colours will fade due to light and wear & tear but provided you could pay for it you could get soms very fine garments made indeed. Even middle quality cloth looks quite spiffy when it's new.

Actually most Jack woudl be an off-white colour or a nice natural linen colour rather than bland brown . In real life that makes for a nice contrast to the livery jacket worn over it or for the badge sewn onto the hack.
Of course your nice white jack will not be prestinely white after it's first campaign….

Re: all this talk of dyeing. Has anyone bothered to look at MS illustrations for an answer?

Damon.

THEY have professionals, WE have common men with agricultural tools. A variant of the "British Pluck".

For some reason, I am reminded of the early British Home Guard in WWII. The ones armed with a piece of metal rod with an old bayonet welded to it.

While talking about the bills, I am also a bit in the dark as to why the medieval English trees needed to be pruned with bills, but that is another issue.

Some image results:

picture

link

picture

link

picture

Damon.

More image results:

link

link

picture

picture

Damon.

Damon, those pictures are all excellent examples of medieval art, but without any indication of what they are supposed to represent, in what country and in what time period, they are just that – pretty pictures.

It is worth bearing in mind that artists often depicted historical figures in the costumes, armour and suing weapons of their own time frame rather than the subject's.

Excellent picture finds Damon. The problem is tha MS images are not photos, they have to be carefully looked at and compared to written records & extant items.

The sources for the pictures are the Maciejowski Bible which was created between 1244 and 1254, the Manesse Codex made the main part which was finished by 1304 with parts added around 1340, what looks like a late 14th century edition edition. of Froissart, Brittish library MS Royal 20C VII, f 41v (pic showing the looters) and a late 14th Century manuscript illustration of St George. I.e none of them show 15th Century Jacks.

Most of the padded armours shown in the 14th Century images are so called "coat armour", a thinner padded garment worn over the main harness of mail and plate.
link

We are lucky that we have a superb extant coat armour which used to belong to Charles VI of France
picture
link
It's covered in a rich red silk which actually has a pattern of figures woven into it. These garmets are high status gear belonging to the men at arms.
link

You have to use either silk, fustian or wool. Silk was expensive to say the least. Fustian was more common but still expensive due to beign partly made of cotton. We have no evidence of wool cloth being used as the outside layer of a coat armour.
The colourfull garmets worn by the common soldiers & archers are probably to a large degreee artistic licence much like the numerous MS illustrations which show all soldiers equipped with full plate harness. The commoners get to borrow the look of the nobles to get a prettier picture.

link has numerous 15th Century Jacks, as can be seen the white, off-white and natural linen colours are dominant with a few examples of coloured jacks. All of the coloured jacks belong to men whose other gear implies high status. I.e men who had they money to spend on an expensive outerlayer of fustian or silk.

Damon, those pictures are all excellent examples of medieval art, but without any indication of what they are supposed to represent, in what country and in what time period, they are just that – pretty pictures.

You can look at the other equipment worn and make a reasonable determination of both the time period as well (in some cases) as the place.

Damon.

"You can look at the other equipment worn and make a reasonable determination of both the time period as well (in some cases) as the place."

True, but it would have been more helpful if you had done what Daniel did – that is tell us the source of the material. The two words "Maciejowski Bible" immediately sets them in place and context.

Cheomesh,
Yes I'm member of my Armory and there are a couple of pics of the same kit over there. Hopefully it should be fully finished and upgraded by the summer. A draw back of 15th Century reenactment is that clothing & armour is closely fitted to the body. So the stuff I used back in my army days no longer fits now that middle age and those extra pounds from civilian life has taken their toll.

I am also a member; I am M. Eversberg II.

M.

Hi

These sources can be argued both ways. That is, these bits of art (and often anachronistic and all) are not photos. The thing is, that the same argument can be made about armory survivors. Besides the idea of fakes, we rarely know WHY this bit survived an another did not.

A friend locally has a spanish pikemans kit in mint condition. The thing is, it survived because it was NEVER used, made for someone's son at age 12 or so. Lots of scroll work, the remains of ink dye coloring on the metal. But the "why" means you cannot really draw any conclusions about 16th century spanish pike armor.

Which leads me to doing figs by "best guess".

I know about linen covering, but the very term "aketon" suggests that surviving jacks survived by NOT being ordinary cotton. Thus, they might not be typical either.

Rocky