Jagger | 29 Mar 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
During the War of the Roses, were troop types sorted? Were troops concentrated in pure formations of only men-at-arms or billmen or bowmen? Say a concentrated formation of only men-at-arms in the center of a battle with flank formations of only bowmen? Basically were troop types segregated from each other in tactical formations. Why can't I seem to find references to English billmen in France during the 100 years war? It seems I only read about men-at-arms and bowmen. I assume billmen are heavy infantry composed of commoners and not men-at-arms. You would think as heavy infantry, I would find mention of them as a significant force. |
MajorB | 29 Mar 2014 9:44 a.m. PST |
During the War of the Roses, were troop types sorted? Possibly. Were troops concentrated in pure formations of only men-at-arms or billmen or bowmen? Depends what you mean by "formations". A battle could consist of all troop types, but it is likely that "companies" of a specific troop type wee formed and these "companies" were then grouped as required.
Basically were troop types segregated from each other in tactical formations. Again, depends what you mean by "tactical formations". Why can't I seem to find references to English billmen in France during the 100 years war? It seems I only read about men-at-arms and bowmen. Billmen were not usually recruited for foreign wars (e.g. HYW) |
Daniel S | 29 Mar 2014 10:08 a.m. PST |
The explaination for the lack of billmen is simple, the English did not use them. They do not appear in either the indentures, muster rolls or battle descriptions from the HYW. The exception are some cases when the English employed French or Gascon foot soldiers armed with bills and other polearms. (There is actually a more evidence for French use of the bill aka guisarme as it appears more than once in French & Breton sources.) There may simply not have been much need for the English to raise billmen. At least in the final decades of the war the mounted retinue archers are often described as well armoured and would have been quite able to defend themselves in the melee. Plenty of English men-at-arms were commoners during the HYW, the English system allowed for the raising of men-at-arms who would fight on foot in the shape of the lance a pied as opposed to the lance a cheval who could fight mounted as well. (The diffrence being the need to own a very expensive warhorse as well as horse armour and having the right training) There are recorded examples of how men first serve as archers in a retiune but later are enlisted as lances when they can equip themselves with the proper armour. |
MajorB | 29 Mar 2014 10:20 a.m. PST |
(The difference being the need to own a very expensive warhorse as well as horse armour and having the right training) There is no documented evidence for the use of horse armour in the WOTR. |
StCrispin | 29 Mar 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
on the table top, my "men at arms" units consist of heavily armored knightly looking types up front and more common foot guys with various polearms and bills filling in the back, instead of in separate units. don't know If its accurate, but it looks right to me. This is for hundred years war. For my slowly growing WOTR, I have more billmen with a couple of full harness dudes up front. mind you, I use the Hail Caesar rule set which is flexible in this way. |
Daniel S | 29 Mar 2014 2:07 p.m. PST |
There is no documented evidence for the use of horse armour in the WOTR. If you re-read the orignal post and my reply you will find that I was writing about the HYW, not the WOTR. Horse armour would not necissarily be a full plate barding, could be a chamfron alone or perhaps with a peytral. Can't located the thesis which used to be online but IIRC chamfrons were listed in English inventories and sales in the 14th C so it would make little sense for them to not use them in the 15th C, at least among the MAA expected to fight mounted. |
Patrice | 29 Mar 2014 2:12 p.m. PST |
I think that there were not true units of billmen in the first half of the HYW, and I'm doubtful there were in the second half of the HYW (= the first half of the 15th century), at least in France (Italy or Germany could be different). Or perhaps only towards the end (in the 1440s
) Bills and such weapons ("vouges", "guisarmes", etc) were known and used, but as a weapon amongst other weapons to be given randomly to some footmen but who were probably not trained to use it together as a unit. Spears were still in large use, and different kinds of "maillotins", long hammers etc. A French poem of the 1370s "La Geste des Bretons en Italie", written by a Breton knight who went to fight in Italy after his side was defeated in the Breton War of Succession in 1364, mentions that they encountered there a large group of "vilains o grant gisarmes" (Old French for "commoners with large bills") as if it were something unusual to the writer. |
MajorB | 29 Mar 2014 2:30 p.m. PST |
Can't located the thesis which used to be online but IIRC chamfrons were listed in English invetories and sales in the 14th C so it would make little sense for them to not use them in the 15th C, at least among the MAA expected to fight mounted. No problem with possible use of chamfrons. It was full plate horse armour I was rejecting. |
Jagger | 29 Mar 2014 5:43 p.m. PST |
Thanks all! Makes sense. Sounds like if I want billmen in France, I will have to use Gascons. |
Great War Ace | 29 Mar 2014 7:25 p.m. PST |
Gascons and English are going to look the same on the game table. Vassals of the lords following the English king
. |
Patrice | 30 Mar 2014 4:09 a.m. PST |
Gascons could field some local troops unavailable to the other "English"; Ian Heath ("Armies of the Middle Ages vol.1") mentions crossbowmen and light "bidowers". No reason for billmen there
Interestingly, the Perrys' Agincourt range includes guys with bills but no billmen units (but their WOTR range includes billmen units). As StCrispin said, if you really want HYW billmen it depends on what your ruleset and players group can accept (and what accuracy you want). In my HYW games I accept some bills mixed with other weapons, and they can form in close order immobile to face cavalry together but they cannot move in close order. Plenty of English men-at-arms were commoners during the HYW I would rather say that poor noblemen, unable to buy a warhorse and complete armour, enlisted as foot. |
Lewisgunner | 30 Mar 2014 5:00 a.m. PST |
Edward III took spearmen to France in his expedition pre Crecy and perhaps a few to Crecy afterwards. That was the lat time , probably because Crecy showed that Men at arms and archers were what was needed and if Edward wanted spears or bills they could be hired locally, whereas bringing men across the Sea cist a lot. Thus only bring those that were really useful. Later the spearmen drop out of musters and are replaced by archers because that is what the king needs, Billmen continue in the North of England because there the border meant that all men had to be prepared to fight and the bill was a weapon of the poor. Archers were generally middle class. In the later HYW and in the WotR the men at arms have pole weapons and so, I believe, do the archers. There are not units of billmen, except in the North. |
Green Tiger | 30 Mar 2014 5:35 a.m. PST |
The term I think we are looking for is gentry. Strictly speaking they are commoners but often quite well off, you would have to be to afford the armour and some were enabled for their services. Billmen may have been used in France at the end of the HYW to compensate for the lack of interest amongst MAA and of course they were cheaper. They certainly formed a part of the retinues taken to France by Edward IV. Muster rolls refer to them as spears which can be a bit confusing. |
Lewisgunner | 30 Mar 2014 8:02 a.m. PST |
Spears under Edward IV. are men at ams. Archers are not quite gentry, They are better off peasants . Gentry are very often people who have the money qualification to be knights, but avoid being knighted because of the burdens of the extra status. Kings try hard to force people to become knights so they can enfirce military service on them. |
MajorB | 30 Mar 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
Gentry are very often people who have the money qualification to be knights, What money qualifications? Kings try hard to force people to become knights so they can enforce military service on them. I've not come across any evidence of Kings FORCING people to be knights. Usually it seems they wanted to be knighted, becasue of the prestige that comes with the knightly status. And anyway by the 15th century feudalsim had effectively ceased and had been replaced by "livery and maintenance" sometimes referred to as "bastard feudalism". link |
Druzhina | 30 Mar 2014 7:39 p.m. PST |
|
janner | 30 Mar 2014 10:49 p.m. PST |
The problem with 'Commoner' is that it also has a specific medieval meaning related to access to common land. Commoners generally gained such rights as an appurtenant to their tenancy, but some were en gross, i.e. unrelated to a tenancy. This places them somewhat above the farm labourer level as illustrated by the following two examples. The basis for the franchise in medieval England was land tenure (shires) and property ownership (urban). Hence the elected representatives sent to de Montfort's parliament in 1265' as well as Edward I's model parliament, were drawn from the rural gentry and urban burgesses. It was these two groups than manned the House of Commons when it was distinguished from the House of Lords, in 1341. For a similar reason, some English universities of medieval foundation retain this term for undergraduates who do not have either a scholarship or an exhibition, i.e. those that pay their way. On evidence for kings excreting pressure on the gentry to enter knighthood, I see if I can dig out the usual references on Edward I. In the meantime, here's a secondary source, link |
MajorB | 31 Mar 2014 2:05 a.m. PST |
On evidence for kings excreting pressure on the gentry to enter knighthood, I see if I can dig out the usual references on Edward I. In the meantime, here's a secondary source, There is nothing in that reference that suggests coercion. Persuasion (with financial incentives), yes, but not coercion. Coercion would require penalties for non-compliance. Even when he tried to summons knightly service on the basis of land holding in 1300, he was himself forced to back down. |
Patrice | 31 Mar 2014 2:53 a.m. PST |
gentry I'm not sure about definitions but isn't "gentry" something more modern and English specific (mix of the lower nobility and the richest non-nobles after the ECW or whatever)? In the feudal system and still in the Late Middle Ages, you were a nobleman (even if very poor) or you were not, it was your bloodline (they didn't say DNA then). In France there were lots of very poor nobles (because of large families although some of the sons became priests) but they could never afford knightly status. Lists of Breton men-at-arms of the War of Breton Succession (mid-14th C.) name some "chevaliers" (knights) and many "escuyers" (squires, too poor to be knights). However in the 15th century the distinction seems no more relevant in military terms, the lists name "hommes d'armes" (men-at-arms) and other. In 1450 the duke of Brittany issued an Ordonnance about "le ban de la noblesse" which theorically concerns all nobles and describes their required equipment; the poorest must come as heavy infantry with juzarme or bow ("if they can use it"); the richest must come as mounted men-at-arms with some heavy infantry followers (as above), depending on their yearly revenue. |
janner | 31 Mar 2014 3:13 a.m. PST |
There is nothing in that reference that suggests coercion. Hence I wrote 'exerting pressure', which I suggest is not the same thing as 'coercion'. :-) |
Griefbringer | 31 Mar 2014 4:16 a.m. PST |
Not trying to be picky, but actually you did write of "kings excreting pressure" which suggests a little bit different approach still. ;-) |
janner | 31 Mar 2014 4:53 a.m. PST |
Ah, the auto-correct did a funny on me and I didn't pick up that it had changed exert to excrete. Still, excreting pressure is probably even less coercive ;-) Apologies for any misunderstanding resulting etc. |
Lewisgunner | 31 Mar 2014 5:49 a.m. PST |
Several kings pass legislation to penalise those who have a knight's income, but do not take up knighthood. It is a constant problem for the kings of England that they cannot enforce.military service as they wish. Of course the alternative to military service is tax, but it is much easier to tax if the man should be with the army, does not want to and can be oessured into paying for a substitute. Major B is quite wrong about men wanting the priviluges and status of knighthood. That might be true in France or Poland, but not in nedieval England. As the Plantagenets booked in more foreign expeditions to Scotland, Wales and France the English gentry were even more averse to turning out in armour for feudal service.. |
Patrice | 31 Mar 2014 6:18 a.m. PST |
kings excreting pressure That's why it's not enough to cut their heads off, and they are still reproducing after all these revolutions! :) |
MajorB | 31 Mar 2014 8:21 a.m. PST |
Major B is quite wrong about men wanting the privileges and status of knighthood. What evidence can you offer to support that view? Even now it is considered a great honour to be conferred a knight when today it is merely an honorary title, how much more so when becoming a knight meant power and status in society? Oh, the king requires me to provide feudal service? Well he can't force me to do that
|
Lewisgunner | 31 Mar 2014 11:04 a.m. PST |
Well Major B being a knight gave you little but cost. So like rich people today , avoiding tax,rich people in the Middle Ages avoided military obligations and serving as royal commissioners. It was all different in the days of William Ist and the Norman kings, because knights got the use of land in return for service, but over the generations the land became hereditary and so you could be rich but without all the bothersome burdens. Same happened over time in Anglo Saxon history and the kings passed laws to say that anyone with a certain income must become a thegn. Its up to you to tell us why the number of knights at the time of King John (4250) declines to 1250 in the reign of Edward III |
MajorB | 31 Mar 2014 12:22 p.m. PST |
We seem to have strayed off the point somewhat. Your original comment was "Kings try hard to force people to become knights so they can enforce military service on them." I think we have conclusively demonstrated that the King did not force pwople to become knights. There would be little point in doing so since he could not enforce military service from them, as your reference amply showed. In fact, on p88 of the book you referenced it says: "more productive overall in improving participation were the king's measures to raise the status of knighthood and make it a rank worth assuming." and "It is evident, for example, in the rapid rise in the number of household knights receiving the king's pay." link |
Lewisgunner | 31 Mar 2014 1:20 p.m. PST |
Kings pass laws saying that everyone with an estate over value of X has to become a knight
that's forcing. The number of household knights goes up a bit and the king has to dole out benefits to get Men at Arms to take up knighthood so there is carrot as well as stick. That does not change the basic argument, the number of knights falls drastically, kings try to reverse this, but it does not affect the trend much. The cites from the book Janner referenced prove the point. |
Lewisgunner | 31 Mar 2014 1:44 p.m. PST |
link Quite good on distraint of knighthood.
|
MajorB | 31 Mar 2014 2:22 p.m. PST |
Kings pass laws saying that everyone with an estate over value of X has to become a knight
that's forcing. Which particular laws and when were they passed? Ah, I see that's answered in your link above. The number of household knights goes up a bit and the king has to dole out benefits to get Men at Arms to take up knighthood That seems to contradict your previous statement. If a law is passed that says you have to become a knight, why bother doling out benefits as an inducement? From your more recent link: "Distrainees so listed could either take up knighthood or pay to avoid it." - it's hardly "forcing" if you can pay to avoid it. Your original argument was that "Kings try hard to force people to become knights so they can enforce military service on them." p96 of your 2nd link says: "But available for what? Compulsory knighthood had no declared motives" so the king was not trying to enforce military service. Or at least there seems to be some debate about it. |
Lewisgunner | 01 Apr 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
There is debate about it MB. That is in large part because Kings had a habit of enforcing feudal dues in order to get money that they did not have to go to parliament for. So instead of getting all those troublesome barons and townsmen in one place to oass a tax law the king just screwed peopke for cash to pay for avoiding feudal duties . So, if you died and your son was a minir the king would grab the revenues of your lands until the boy ir. girl was old enough and then fine them a large amount to enter into the inheritance or, if a girl, charge the new husband the king appointed for her hand and the inheritance she brought. Their problem with distraint of knighthood is that the Edwards were a warlike lot (II &III) and so they wanted men for their wars. I doubt that they cared that much whether the men came as knights or paid a fine to have a substitute hired. The king got a well equipped. soldier either way . There is also a potential element in all these sumptuary laws that kings and courts harked back to the good old days when people knew their place and armies consisted of feudal followers with chivalric courage, serving for honour. Of course that was never quite true, but pressuring men to become knights was an important way of keeping alive old virtues when men fought rather than farmed or traded. The end result, though was more men well kitted out for foreign wars so the disputes as yo motive do not really matter. Edward founds the Order of the Garter to emphasise chivalry and loyalty and there is a rise in popularity of Arthurian tales. It is all the cultural propaganda that justifies wars abroad. As to household knights I hold the view that Edward wants them to officer the army. It is a good way of controlling these men and giving them status and common purpose. I do not think that pressuring people to become knights is anything to do with household knights. Edward wabts the latter with him as the core and staff of the army. His more general call for knights is to provide more warriors, whether those who have the money qualification or paid mercenaries. |
janner | 01 Apr 2014 9:11 a.m. PST |
This is a nice piece of research on Edward I's household, link Some time before the HYW, I know, but I came across it whilst doing some more background on Richard I's mesnie |
MajorB | 01 Apr 2014 11:52 a.m. PST |
As to household knights I hold the view that Edward wants them to officer the army. It is a good way of controlling these men and giving them status and common purpose. That seems a very 20/21st century view of how an army was formed and officered. From my research on the WOTR it is plain that the men fought with thir Lord, often each noble had a large retinue of troops loyal to him under the livery and maintenance arrangements. They would not be willing to fight under the control of anyone else. This is a nice piece of research on Edward I's household, According to that paper, the household knights were mainly used for diplomatic and councilling rather than miltary command. |
Lewisgunner | 02 Apr 2014 2:11 a.m. PST |
No, its not a modern view of the army. What the medieval kings had to do was to get stuff done and often that stuff was military so we find household knights running the marches or a key castle. The tone of the thesis that Janner cites s that household knights do not only do military work, so the author accepts that military jobs are a main task. I can see that MB has a rather romantic idea of the Middle Ages. Nothing wrong with that, its quaint and charming. The WotR is a bit different because the kings are not running foreign expeditions so the administration of the army is a lot less complex
no need to get it into ships and provision it across the sea. As I recall its still a difficulty to get men to accept knighthood. |
MajorB | 02 Apr 2014 2:27 a.m. PST |
What the medieval kings had to do was to get stuff done and often that stuff was military so we find household knights running the marches or a key castle. That's not the same as "officering the army". I can see that MB has a rather romantic idea of the Middle Ages. Nothing wrong with that, its quaint and charming. Not quite sure what you mean by a "romantic view". My understanding of the Medieval World is based on extensive research, mainly focussed on the 15th century and the Wars of the Roses. |
Patrice | 02 Apr 2014 3:50 a.m. PST |
The 14th C. was still under the influence of feudal categories (even if less and less accurate), the 15th C. was much less. As I mentioned before, Breton lists of troops in the mid-14th C. mention "knights" as a specific category. Similar Breton lists of the mid/late 15th C. don't bother to mention if people are knighted or not they just wanted to know who is a fully armoured man-at-arms, and rich nobles had to come as men-at-arms, knighted or not. I would suspect that the same thing was even more true in England, and perhaps earlier (as English armies of the mid-14th C. were already less feodal than in France)? |
MajorB | 02 Apr 2014 4:25 a.m. PST |
I would suspect that the same thing was even more true in England, and perhaps earlier (as English armies of the mid-14th C. were already less feudal than in France)? I would think you are quite right. |
Lewisgunner | 02 Apr 2014 7:21 a.m. PST |
Armies in France are less feudal in the sense that they consist of men raised by contract. WotR armies reverted in that they were largely of lords and their retainers . Armies in England in the XVth century were not kept in the field for as long as they would be in France so expeditions across the sea developed a more professional system. |
janner | 03 Apr 2014 2:48 a.m. PST |
The tone of the thesis that Janner cites s that household knights do not only do military work, so the author accepts that military jobs are a main task. Correct, and my own work on Richard I's late 12 century household shows similar patterns of behaviour with household knights acting as subordinate commanders (with baronial forces under command on occasion), messengers, liaison officers etc. as well as their lord's personal conroi. The royal household included a permanent cadre that with short term members formed the core of the king's army, supported by baronal households, stipendarii, and mercenary companies required. Household knights seem only to have gained fiefs (rent or land), title, favourable marriages etc. after lengthy service, i.e. it was as a result of their service not the cause of their service. So they were predominantly professional rather than feudal. However, familial ties were strong with sons following fathers into service, brothers opening to door to their siblings etc. So there is a blurred line between a tradition of familial service and feudal inheritance of the resultant rewards for service. Stephen Church's work on John's mesnie is a useful piece of research on the composition and duties of household knights. On definitions, one must tread very carefully as to which terms in Latin or the vernacular are considered as distinguishing a 'knight' or a 'serjeant' from heavy horse in general. This is dealt with reasonably well by David Crouch in his Birth of Nobility. As is so often the case, we seem to have come some way from the original question :-) |
Green Tiger | 07 Apr 2014 3:05 a.m. PST |
It was all about money. Members of the gentry (who were a pretty well established if ill defined group by the 14th century)quite often refused knighthood, this is well documented. The usual reasons were the cost and the range of duties (not just military) associated with knighthood. Knights were liable for scutage payments, which were taxes in lieu of military service so Edward III actually reduced the proprty qualification for knights to net more of this lucrative income. This in turn led to a flurry of what today would be called tax avoidance schemes. It had little/nothing to do with recruitment which by the 15th century was done almost entirely by indentured contract. |