"Formation depths" Topic
41 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench ArticleDon't let the horses daunt you!
|
BigRedBat | 26 Sep 2014 7:11 a.m. PST |
Does anyone have an information as to how many ranks deep troops would form up in the Wars of the Roses, please? Thanks, Simon |
MajorB | 26 Sep 2014 7:19 a.m. PST |
I have always worked on the basis of 4 ranks – 2 ranks of archers and 2 ranks of men-at-arms. |
BigRedBat | 26 Sep 2014 7:54 a.m. PST |
Gosh that's a lot shallower than I'd imagined. Do you know of any sources? Thanks, Simon |
MajorB | 26 Sep 2014 7:58 a.m. PST |
No, I do not know of any sources that specifically refer to depth of formation. However, looking at a number of battle maps and deployment areas and knowing the approximate number of troops present, the 4 rank formations do seem to fit and make sense. |
GurKhan | 26 Sep 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
At least one chronicler – Elmham – says that the English were four deep at Agincourt, so it's a possibility for the WotR as well. |
BigRedBat | 26 Sep 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
|
BigRedBat | 26 Sep 2014 8:25 a.m. PST |
Really interesting; much shallower than a lot of the formations in the ancient era with which I'm more familiar. |
Dark Knights And Bloody Dawns | 27 Sep 2014 1:57 p.m. PST |
If you're at SELWG I'll introduce you to Dave from the Lance and Longbow Society. |
Great War Ace | 28 Sep 2014 7:11 a.m. PST |
Four deep would be seen as a minimum, or "thin line" in our rules. Much deeper was better whenever possible. And English archers did not line up BEHIND MAA, ever, so far as I recall. It was a routine drill for Italian militia armies throughout the middle ages, but English armies did not do "screened fire". Agincourt was a special case, where the English army stretched to fit the terrain between anchored flanks. And it was only the separate "battles" of MAA that were four deep, the archers being at least eight ranks and possibly over sixteen ranks deep (depending on which frontage you go with, from a minimum of c. 700 yds to c. 1,000 yds…. |
MajorB | 28 Sep 2014 11:08 a.m. PST |
Much deeper was better whenever possible. Why do you think deeper is better? And English archers did not line up BEHIND MAA, ever, so far as I recall. It was a routine drill for Italian militia armies throughout the middle ages, but English armies did not do "screened fire". No they didn't. They would have been in front of the MAA at the start of the battle. And it was only the separate "battles" of MAA that were four deep, the archers being at least eight ranks and possibly over sixteen ranks deep (depending on which frontage you go with, from a minimum of c. 700 yds to c. 1,000 yds…. Hmm … not sure how you get those figures. Assuming an English army of 9000 ( link ) then at a frontage of 700 yards you would have ~12 ranks and at 1000 yards frontage there would have been ~9 ranks. Assuming MAA in 4 ranks then the archers would have been in 5 – 8 ranks (again depending on the frontage). As you say, the Agincourt battlefield was unusual being so constrained. WOTR battlefiedsl were not constrained like that. |
Great War Ace | 28 Sep 2014 4:41 p.m. PST |
Why do you think deeper is better? It doesn't "break" as easily? The Swiss were sometimes fifty deep! Ancmed armies liked deep. Hastings on the English side was very deep as well. Legnano the Italian militia foot were densely packed around their carroccio. Examples can be multiplied. No they didn't. They would have been in front of the MAA at the start of the battle. Oops, that's what you wrote, isn't it? And where do "your" archers go when the enemy gets within melee range? I don't think there is any evidence for English yeomen routinely lining up as the front two ranks of a four rank formation with MAAs behind. Agincourt: the original sources place archers between and on the flanks of the MAA battles, not in front, except for one or two references of lesser reliability, i.e. not close to the time of the battle. And those sources have other problems inferred by placing the archers in front. "We" had this out at length on that thread Rich Knapton started back in 2008…. TMP link |
MajorB | 29 Sep 2014 2:54 a.m. PST |
It doesn't "break" as easily? So most of the guys are just there to stop the rest running away? Seems a bit of a waste of manpower to me. Particularly if you are talking about archers, who should be out there shooting at the enemy. The Swiss were sometimes fifty deep! Agreed. But there were very specific reasons for such a deep formation. Hastings on the English side was very deep as well. What evidence can you offer to support that statement? Legnano the Italian militia foot were densely packed around their carroccio. Examples can be multiplied. I'm sure you are right about that, but practice in Italy does not necessarily carry over to other countries. In particular the English were known to have fought differently to most other European armies. And where do "your" archers go when the enemy gets within melee range? They simply file back through the ranks of MAA behind them. A simple drill manoeuvre. I don't think there is any evidence for English yeomen routinely lining up as the front two ranks of a four rank formation with MAAs behind. No, I am not not aware of any primary sources stating such, but the problem is that sources would not describe things they regarded as "standard practice". They were not writing for an early 21st century audience! Agincourt: the original sources place archers between and on the flanks of the MAA battles, not in front, except for one or two references of lesser reliability, i.e. not close to the time of the battle. Hardy and Strickland, in their book "The Warbow" make a strong case for the presence of archers in fron of the MAA. |
MajorB | 29 Sep 2014 3:14 a.m. PST |
Agincourt: the original sources place archers between and on the flanks of the MAA battles, not in front, except for one or two references of lesser reliability, i.e. not close to the time of the battle. Monstrelet "[The king] had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers IN THE FRONT and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers and the horses and baggage were placed behind the army." |
Great War Ace | 29 Sep 2014 7:49 a.m. PST |
Yes, as I pointed out, the TMP link above went through all of that, "out in front" business and the rest of it, ad nauseam. Hastings depth is asserted by the known field. If on Caldbec hill, the frontage is even narrower than the traditional field. The English army had to be at least eight deep, probably more. Wm of Poitiers' rhetorical device to show how densely packed the English line was would not be possible if only c. four ranks deep, i.e. no wounded Englishmen in a line c. four deep would be held in place by the ranks around them and kept from slipping to the ground by the pressure of said-ranks. Again, our game calls four ranks deep "thin line" for a reason: it is thin by common battle depth standards, from antiquity through the ancmed period, and only thins out when firearms become commonplace. Additional ranks means that the other side is outnumbered, and possesses less "pushing" mass. To say the English fought differently than most European armies is not helpful by itself. I see no differences worth mentioning myself. The longbow in masses of thousands is the singular difference. Dismounted MAAs seems to be a standard practice everywhere, and there were a few times when English MAA kept their horses, so again, no real differences to speak of. It's obvious that the French and Scots attacked in deep formations of infantry or dismounted MAAs. …the problem is that sources would not describe things they regarded as "standard practice". They were not writing for an early 21st century audience! And that caveat always ends the discussion, because "we" always fall back on our own interpretation of the evidence, and nobody changes their minds. :) … |
MajorB | 29 Sep 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
Hastings depth is asserted by the known field. If on Caldbec hill, the frontage is even narrower than the traditional field. The English army had to be at least eight deep, probably more. Constrained battlefield widths will always cause deeper formations. It's basic arithmetic. But I don't think you can argue that they would necessarily form up so deep if there were not such constraints on deployment. I see no differences worth mentioning myself. The longbow in masses of thousands is the singular difference. Precisely! That one fact makes all the difference IMHO. An army that focuses on missile fire needs to get as many of its men as possible where they can shoot effectively. |
MajorB | 29 Sep 2014 8:14 a.m. PST |
Additional ranks means that the other side is outnumbered, and possesses less "pushing" mass. The idea that extra ranks give greater "pushing mass" (what a charming phrase!) has been profoundly refuted by Goldsworthy here: PDF link |
Yesthatphil | 29 Sep 2014 11:35 a.m. PST |
FWIW Foard and Curry in Bosworth 1485 a Battlefield Rediscovered (2013) use 6 deep as their rule of thumb (with the rider 'which is perhaps too shallow for 1485') when evaluating the possible deployment theories for the battle (and the relevant frontages that the bodies of men would occupy) … Phil |
Great War Ace | 29 Sep 2014 7:48 p.m. PST |
I think that the "pushing mass" is more about "having the most" to back up those in front, when they are down and out, you have more men to stick into the fight, especially to exploit a gap as the deeper formation penetrates a broken line: the numbers at that point, eating at the flanks and rear of the broken line, would be decisive. I wasn't suggesting that rear ranks physically push on the ranks in front of them. That is a phalanx thing, even the Swiss do it, and others using similar deep formations. I know that the Goldsworthy paper refutes this, but I am not convinced. He seems to say that the front rank men needed room to employ their weapons, and that having shields pressed into their backs would make this impossible. But he also says that the Hoplite was a spearman and that the sword was only a weapon of last resort. Spears in one hand, while shield hands press and slam their shields against the enemies' shields, do not require anymore room to be employed than the narrow gaps that are between and below the shields, and of course can be thrust over the tops of them. His picture of phalanxes rushing into disorder is fallacious, imho. We don't see this inevitable rush to "get it all over with" in medieval armies, which for the most part are arguably even more irregular in their training than early hoplite armies were. In fact we have descriptions of "shield walls" approaching each other slowly, packed densely and using their hand missiles, and only rushing at each other in the last few paces of open ground. If Goldsworthy were right, this "discipline" would make irregular medieval armies more disciplined than hoplite ones! Goldsworthy makes much of the fragility of thin phalanxes, and rightly so, but he makes this out to be an opportunity for the more craven majority of hoplites to run away, compared to the deeply formed phalanxes "trapping" the less brave men in the middle and forcing them to advance to fight. I think this is a wrong idea. Sure, the more experienced men were in the front and rear. But that doesn't square with his assertion that they ran toward the enemy to just "get it all over with". Experienced men would be the last to run and open themselves to the weakness of a scattered formation, further making it possible for the "cravens" in the middle of the phalanx to hold back and not run as fast. The rear rank could not compel those ahead of them to run faster, with a single rank versus six or more ranks massed ahead of them. So the front rank would wind up far ahead of the main mass of supporting ranks. Where in all of this belabored subject of charge distances does Goldsworthy show that the sources actually describe a broken formation resulting? He asserts this to be the case, but does not show it. It is possible, rather, that "charging" was at the pace of the slowest men, not the fastest, especially if the front rank men were experienced enough to stay together. If Henry V's army could advance across nearly a thousand yards of open and muddy ground, stopping often to redress their formation, surely hoplites were not inferior in this respect. "A shallower formation was more likely to break first, all other factors being equal." And there you have it. A succinctly stated summing up of why deeper formations worked better when facing thinner ones…. |
MajorB | 30 Sep 2014 2:08 a.m. PST |
My only reason for quoting Goldsworthy's paper was to comment on your use of the phrase" pushing mass". I think he makes a good case that the idea of the rear ranks literally pushing on the backs of the guys in front is fallacious. I do not necessarily dispute your other comments about the paper, but we digress. "A shallower formation was more likely to break first, all other factors being equal." That may well be true. And the significant point in that statement is "all other factors being equal" – which of course they rarely if ever are. However the converse is also true, to whit, that a deep formation has a narrower frontage and therefore its flanks are more vulnerable, unless anchored on a terrain feature or another unit. Flank attacks are usually devastating. There is, it seems to me, a fine balance between forming deep so as to potentially break the opposing formation or forming wide so as to threaten their flanks. Me, I would go for more width every time, particularly if the formation is armed with missile weapons. |
MajorB | 30 Sep 2014 2:13 a.m. PST |
FWIW Foard and Curry in Bosworth 1485 a Battlefield Rediscovered (2013) use 6 deep as their rule of thumb Now this I find intriguing. I have great respect for both Foard and Curry and so will have to give this comment some serious thought. |
Great War Ace | 30 Sep 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
I use eight as my rule of thumb. Pretty much standard practice throughout the ancient world as a minimum, and I believe the medieval art of war took everything it knew from the ancients.
Me, I would go for more width every time, particularly if the formation is armed with missile weapons. What do your archers far away do when the enemy forms a column and attacks your MAA battle in the center? It would be much more effective to bring them in closer, stacked up behind the archers in front and volley overhead. The percentage of hits goes down, of course, but the number of hits would go up…. |
MajorB | 30 Sep 2014 10:29 a.m. PST |
I use eight as my rule of thumb. Pretty much standard practice throughout the ancient world as a minimum, Way back at the beginning of this thread I said that an analysis of the WotR battlefield widths compared to the numbers present tends to give a lower figure. WotR armies were'nt that large compared to abcient armies. and I believe the medieval art of war took everything it knew from the ancients. I'm not at all sure they did. Many ancient manuscripts were lost (e.g. the fire in the library at Alexandria) and a lot of them would have been written in languages unknown outside clerical orders in the medieval period. What do your archers far away do when the enemy forms a column and attacks your MAA battle in the center? Well, unless they've never faced archers before that would be a foolhardy thing to do, but if they did do so, then the archers simply pull in closer on their flanks until they are all in range and let them have it. Remember what I said about depth exposing flanks? Indeed, isn't that roughly what happend at Agincourt? It would be much more effective to bring them in closer, stacked up behind the archers in front and volley overhead. Again, I'm not so sure. I remain slightly sceptical of this idea that deep ranks of archers all present at the "same angle" and let loose. Sure they can do it and it would probably be reasonably effective area fire, but if it was possible to deploy so that a majority of the archers could see their target, surely that would make them far more effective? Particularly if they could engage the flanks (remember that long discussion in an old TMP thread about side hits?). |
MajorB | 30 Sep 2014 10:30 a.m. PST |
In the spirit of compromise, I say 4 ranks you say 8 – shall we compromise on 6 – and agree with Foard and Curry? |
Great War Ace | 30 Sep 2014 3:11 p.m. PST |
Perhaps. But I'm not quite done yet. Just because assumed WotR battlefields seem capable of such and such a width, doesn't mean that back then they were, or even that we have the right fields pegged. Bosworth has suddenly moved two or more miles away! :) And besides, armies didn't just form up to meet the nearest terrain upon which to anchor the flanks. That would be daft if the armies in question didn't fill the available space. What happened in those cases is that the commanders formed up according to what they expected the enemy to do and vice versa. Covering the flanks was secondary to winning quickly by a breakthrough or rout of part of the enemy army. On archery effectiveness. You are right to assume the possibility of deep shooting to achieve saturation. But mistaken, imho, to doubt the greater effectiveness of this over aimed shooting. The saturation of virtually countless thousands of arrows is far more disorienting and deadly than aimed shooting, unless that shooting is from extremely close range. And we both know that English archers in particular made it a point to shoot the moment the enemy came within range, and the shooting kept up right to the moment of contact. I've outlined how this was done before, and I still stand by it. On ancient warfare descending to medieval warfare: Scant ancient sources existed, to be sure. But the methods were passed down largely unchanged from century to century. "Daughter States of the Byzantine Empire" is supposed to be about this phenomenon of tactical systems appearing in Italy because of previous "Roman" systems. The Germanic "shield walls" in the middle ages are no different from those used against Imperial Rome, ditto the Celtic methods of fighting. Ancient battles as well as medieval ones involved frequent opening demonstrations between champions. The main armies moved into contact in the same ways, massing as many men in the given frontage as possible or as demanded by circumstances. (I am sure that Henry V greatly disliked having to form up his MAAs only four deep, but the field required this, if his MAAs were to engage as many of the French MAAs as possible, thus sparing the archers as much as possible from the threat of melee with superiorly armored enemies. If archers were superior in melee, or even equal, to MAAs, then surely the English would have been better served to officer all yeomen armies with a few knights and lords. But archers alone do not a battle win. This too is ancient tactical lore and even the English improvements to the system of dense archery shooting could not change that.) Agincourt flanks: The English could see a second and even a third line behind the French first dismounted battle. There was only an advance to attack the flanks when they ran out of arrows. Previous to this, the yeomen shot increasingly into flanks as the French first battle – now in three columns – came within pointblank range. Apparently the timing of the French attacks allowed this advance beyond the stakes, because the French second battle was moving even slower than the first, having churned up mud to contend with, and possibly reluctance as well by then. The sources say that the yeomen completed the defeat of the first battle, then leaped to attack the second battle just as it was coming up – disordered, without doubt. So the idea that a "thin line" of archers would advance beyond their stakes hundreds of yards away on either flank, so that they could move in close and shoot up the flanks of the French, doesn't fit the narrative sources. But we digress again. Isn't it fun? :) … |
MajorB | 01 Oct 2014 11:13 a.m. PST |
Just because assumed WotR battlefields seem capable of such and such a width, doesn't mean that back then they were, or even that we have the right fields pegged. Bosworth has suddenly moved two or more miles away! :) I am basing my comments on the latest research, including the relocation of Bosworth three kilometres south-west of Ambion Hill. link And besides, armies didn't just form up to meet the nearest terrain upon which to anchor the flanks. That would be daft if the armies in question didn't fill the available space. So in your opinion, medieval armies did not worry about their flanks? The saturation of virtually countless thousands of arrows is far more disorienting and deadly than aimed shooting, unless that shooting is from extremely close range. If the quantity of arrows being shot is the same (number of archers x rate of fire) then logically, aimed shooting must be more effective than "blanket" fire. And hardly "virtually countless". Ammunition resupply was critical if you were going to sustain shooting by your archers for more than 2 minutes. massing as many men in the given frontage as possible or as demanded by circumstances. Exactly my point. The only reason armies formed up deeper than normal was because there wasn't room to deploy wider. Previous to this, the yeomen shot increasingly into flanks as the French first battle – now in three columns – came within pointblank range. Apparently the timing of the French attacks allowed this advance beyond the stakes Precisely. Given the fact that even at a minimum frontage of 700 yards, the archers at the extreme flanks would have been out of range of the French attackers (and it gets worse if you widen the deployment) there is every incentive to get to a position where they CAN deploy effective archery. |
Great War Ace | 01 Oct 2014 12:08 p.m. PST |
So in your opinion, medieval armies did not worry about their flanks?
Covering the flanks was secondary to winning quickly by a breakthrough or rout of part of the enemy army. If the quantity of arrows being shot is the same (number of archers x rate of fire) then logically, aimed shooting must be more effective than "blanket" fire. Theoretically, yes. But actually, how is this possible? Agincourt still forms our most accessible example: a minimum of 700 yards wide, at four ranks deep, the archer flanks are going to deploy in the face of the second French battle if they move out to get aimed flanking shots on the first battle. That didn't happen. As I rehearsed above, the archers only came out from behind their stakes after the melee was joined and they were running out of arrows. Were all those stacked up archers standing behind the first four ranks and not shooting? No. And hardly "virtually countless". Ammunition resupply was critical if you were going to sustain shooting by your archers for more than 2 minutes. 24 to 48 arrows each, multiplied by 6K archers (a compromise between the "old guys'" "5,000" archers and Curry's 7-8K) is 144-288K arrows. That's 36K arrows per minute into 5-8K French MAA. That's potentially over four hits per man per minute, with 6-15% of his body not covered by plate. The MAAs on the flanks and front were taking far more AIMED hits per minute than that once they got within PB range, plus the continued dropping shot from the massed rear ranks. That's what I meant by "virtually countless" arrows. Once your armored body had been impacted by half a dozen or more missiles, and at least one had drawn blood, the counting was moot. The only reason armies formed up deeper than normal was because there wasn't room to deploy wider. This assertion breaks down if carried to extremes. Wider was not the only, or even the main, consideration when forming up an army. Solidity and mass were greater concerns. It does no good to be wider if the enemy punches gaping holes through your line, and/or your thinned out army runs away because each man has a clear field to the rear…. |
MajorB | 01 Oct 2014 2:42 p.m. PST |
Agincourt still forms our most accessible example: a minimum of 700 yards wide, at four ranks deep, the archer flanks are going to deploy in the face of the second French battle if they move out to get aimed flanking shots on the first battle. 7000 men (6K archers and 1K MAA) on a frontage of 700 yards have to form up at least 10 ranks deep. On a frontage of 1000yds they would be 7 ranks deep. And you yourself said above: "Apparently the timing of the French attacks allowed this advance beyond the stakes, because the French second battle was moving even slower than the first," - so they are not deploying in the face of the second French battle. That's 36K arrows per minute into 5-8K French MAA. That's potentially over four hits per man per minute, with 6-15% of his body not covered by plate. Oh, come on. They weren't THAT accurate! This assertion breaks down if carried to extremes. Well of course it does. Solidity and mass were greater concerns. It does no good to be wider if the enemy punches gaping holes through your line, and/or your thinned out army runs away because each man has a clear field to the rear…. Solidity and mass are important if you are going to engage in close quarter fighting. But if you are mainly missile armed then you want those missile weapons to be used effectively – which causes a shallower, wider deployment. The lessons of history abound in this context – the more effective the missile weapons in use, the wider the deployment … |
Great War Ace | 01 Oct 2014 6:45 p.m. PST |
…- so they are not deploying in the face of the second French battle. Let's back up: You are advocating for thinner archer formations, if I understand you correctly. That means that swinging the wings of archers forward and inward to shoot up the flanks of the French first battle would place the ends of the wings right in the faces of the French second battle, IF the archers were trying to thin out to take advantage of aimed shooting. They didn't in fact do this, and remained in their many ranks (more than seven deep, because some 250 yards of that "700" is taken up by MAAs in four ranks, so the archers are eight deep at the very least and as much as thirteen deep if holding a position 700 yards wide). To thin out to four ranks deep for aimed shooting would lengthen their 450 (or 750) yards of frontage to 1,350 or 1,500 yards long!, which would take them actually beyond the French rear battle. There is no way that English archers deployed four deep, probably not in any battle where they were four-fifths or five-sixths of the whole army. Oh, come on. They weren't THAT accurate! True. They were using saturation/indirect shooting for most of the French advance, volley dropping shot. We have to assume at least half of the missiles hit open ground. That is still a lot of hits, because it is a LOT of arrows. And what I said about direct, aimed shooting within PB range remains unaffected by any of the reduction of the "potential" hits by half or more: the aimed shots achieved almost one hundred percent hits, and were loosed by some 900 to 1,500 archers (just the first two ranks – considering a 450 or 750 yard frontage) at twelve rounds per minute, or 10,800 to 18,000 arrows in one minute of aimed, PB shooting, with almost all of it impacting a similar number of French MAAs. Think of that! If you were a French MAA in the first two ranks of the first battle, that last c. 75 yards of closing ground would have subjected you to some TWELVE arrow strikes into your armored body. What were the chances of not being wounded? Far less than 50%, since each shot had somewhere between 6 and 15% of hitting a part of the body imperfectly protected or not protected by plate at all. We have to consider that the first two ranks of the French first battle were effectively rendered hors de combat from arrow shot alone. The lessons of history abound in this context – the more effective the missile weapons in use, the wider the deployment … Hmm. I'm not convinced by this blanket assertion. Guns go thinner not from more effectiveness but because they are direct shooting weapons, unlike bows and crossbows. Stacking up more than two shooting ranks deep with muskets is less effective, while providing more targets for enemy fire. There is nothing like aimed accuracy with a smooth bore musket to compare with a marksman using a bow or even a crossbow inside a hundred yards. Damage capacity goes to the gun, of course. But total hits with aimed shooting go to the archer every time. Back to the OP question, it seems that the shooting part of the battles in the WotR was very brief. MAAs on foot closed with their counterparts right away. Archers dueled with each other and then what happened? Do we have replete examples of yeomen engaging in melee with each other? Or did the archers ignore each other and shoot at the MAAs? then stand aside, withdraw to the rear, what? The OP question was about ranks deep, but why should MAAs form up four deep, especially if their archers were trying to get in aimed shooting wherever possible, i.e. thinner lines of archers occupying the bulk of the frontage? If you are right, MajorB, then the MAAs would be even deeper, having less frontage leftover to form up in. I confess that WotR is not a core period of interest with me. That's why I don't have specific info to input…. |
MajorB | 02 Oct 2014 4:03 a.m. PST |
…- so they are not deploying in the face of the second French battle. Let's back up: You are advocating for thinner archer formations, if I understand you correctly.
Not at Agincourt. The battlefield was constrained by the woods on both sides and we know (as discussed in that very long TMP thread) that the archers did not move into the trees. Agincourt is a specific case. Back to the OP question, it seems that the shooting part of the battles in the WotR was very brief. MAAs on foot closed with their counterparts right away. The length of the shooting phase varied with the tactical circumstances. Yes, the MAA would always seek to close to handstrokes at the earliest opportunity, but in some cases the sheer weight of the arrow storm would inhibit that (as you amply demonstrated in the context of Agincourt above). Archers dueled with each other and then what happened? Do we have replete examples of yeomen engaging in melee with each other? Or did the archers ignore each other and shoot at the MAAs? then stand aside, withdraw to the rear, what? The initial arrow storm would have been directed at the opposing battles. Archers would just aim at the front rank. The archers then fell back through the MAA. It is not clear from the chronicles what they did then, but it is rrasonable to assume that they followed up their MAA to dispatch the wounded enemy with daggers etc. The OP question was about ranks deep, but why should MAAs form up four deep, especially if their archers were trying to get in aimed shooting wherever possible, i.e. thinner lines of archers occupying the bulk of the frontage? I'm talking about the whole battle (archers and MAA combined) forming up 4 deep, although I'm beginning to incline towards 6 deep (based on the Foard/Curry view). If you are right, MajorB, then the MAAs would be even deeper, having less frontage leftover to form up in. No, the MAA formed up behind the archers. I confess that WotR is not a core period of interest with me. That's why I don't have specific info to input…. Then I am slightly puzzled as to why you dived into this discussion at all. The more I research the WotR, the more I realise that it is subtly different from the preceding medieval period. In the WotR we are on the cusp of great changes with the introduction of battlefield artiilery and the consequent problems of how to use it and the first recorded use of handguns. Add to that the complexity of having English archers on both sides (unlike the HYW) and you begin to see how different the WotR is. |
Great War Ace | 02 Oct 2014 9:03 a.m. PST |
It is different, and I have always enjoyed reading about the WotR, but I have never devoted remotely the same amount of reading/research as I have to the 11th and 12th centuries. That's all I meant by "not a core interest". I also enjoy the HYW categorically, but my knowledge of it is only slightly better than my knowledge about the WotR. I "dived into this discussion" because I have an intrinsic interest in archery, some experience with the weapons, and a late friend who knew a ton more about it than I do, and whose input into what I think I know remains dominant whenever I engage on the subject, especially about English yeomen and armies of the HYW and subsequent WotR. You seem to focus on the "subtly different" aspects, without being specific. You've reinforced your belief that the MAA formed up behind the archers. We disagree on this important detail. Anytime archers formed up in front of MAA it seems specifically because of a dominant proportion of MAA to archers, not when they are c. 50% or even more of an English army. Are you asserting that MAA and other melee foot, e.g. "billmen", made up fifty percent or more of WotR armies? If so, I can see why you would assert three ranks of MAA covered by a similar depth of archers. But I do not believe that MAA were that big a proportion of English armies during the WotR. Archers, as you point out, were already starting to fade in battlefield use during the second half of the 15th century. But this was only beginning to occur. Even by Bosworth, it seems to me that archers were the dominant troop type in the royal army. Bolingbroke's army was of course not an English army in any literal sense of the word, besides being much smaller. Nevertheless, proportionally he probably had about as many archers as Dickon's army. In short, I require convincing evidence of a parity of arms, in order to accept that MAA were USUALLY deployed behind an equal frontage of yeomen in WotR battles…. |
MajorB | 02 Oct 2014 9:11 a.m. PST |
Are you asserting that MAA and other melee foot, e.g. "billmen", made up fifty percent or more of WotR armies? Yes, usually about 50%. If so, I can see why you would assert three ranks of MAA covered by a similar depth of archers. But I do not believe that MAA were that big a proportion of English armies during the HYW. No they ween't. The proportion of archers in the HYW is often quoted at 3 archers to 1 MAA, but as you are aware it was more like 5 or 6 to 1 at Agincourt. Archers, as you point out, were already starting to fade in battlefield use during the second half of the 15th century. But this was only beginning to occur. Even by Bosworth, it seems to me that archers were the dominant troop type in the royal army. Yes. archers were still the dominant troop type even at Bosworth. |
Great War Ace | 02 Oct 2014 10:16 p.m. PST |
What sources convince you that MAA were c. 50% of WotR armies? In your opinion, what were the extreme proportions possible for a WotR army? In my army list, I give MAA up to 50% of the total army, and "infantry" up to 85% of the total army. Out of the infantry you can field up to 60% as "levy" which has the weaker (non elite, so to speak) bow of c. 50lbs draw weight. The rest of the infantry can be up to another 60% longbow, with unarmored predominating, light and medium filling out the rest – in other words, it is possible to field all 85% of the "infantry" as archers. But the total good longbow – 70lb and over 100lb draw weights – are limited to 25% and 10% respectively of total longbow mustered. This is obviously not as potent archery as appeared on the continent during the HYW, the reason being that those rather small armies were hand picked from the best of the archers, whereas the WotR armies had a lot of lesser quality bow mixed in. You are invited to comment on this set of assertions of mine! :) … |
MajorB | 03 Oct 2014 2:17 a.m. PST |
You ask a lot of detailed questions and I do not have my reference material to hand right now. I'll have to get back to you when I can. We seem to have strayed considerably from the original subject of this thread. |
Great War Ace | 03 Oct 2014 8:19 a.m. PST |
Not at all. The question of proportions deals directly with how many ranks MAA and archers formed up in: if archers form c. 5/6ths of the army, there is no way that MAA are behind them in some skinny line! But, if archers form half or less of an army, then yes, it seems reasonable to have all available archers out in front as thin as required to cover the MAA behind, and therefore doing aimed shooting instead of vollies. The more archers there are, the more certainty that the deployment will be battles of MAA with archers interspersed, as at Agincourt and Verneuil, in fact all of the later HYW battles. But back "home" in Merry Olde England the proportions for the WotR are likely different or at least potentially so. The proportions of MAA to archers will dictate where the archers are placed in the line, which will in turn determine how deep they are, and also the MAA depth will be determined by the proportion of archers to MAA…. |
MajorB | 04 Oct 2014 10:08 a.m. PST |
What sources convince you that MAA were c. 50% of WotR armies? Right, I've now been able to refer back to my reference material and research notes. Many indenture documents from the Wars of the Roses period still exist. In all those I have studied the ratio of archers to others is more or less 1:1. A famous example is the Bridport Muster Roll. It lists 201 names of which 114 carry longbows. In your opinion, what were the extreme proportions possible for a WotR army? Based on the primary source material mentioned above, I can see no strong evidence to support more than about 50% archers in a WOTR army. In my army list, I give MAA up to 50% of the total army, I assume here that you are including "billmen" in your MAA? and "infantry" up to 85% of the total army. Presumably then the other 15% are mounted? Mounted MAA or scourers, or a mixture of the two? Out of the infantry you can field up to 60% as "levy" While it is true that some WOTR armies contained large numbers of "levy" – Margaret of Anjou's force for the February 1461 campaign is the classic example, it is also true that most if not all of the fighting was actually done by the professional troops as Gregory says of 2nd St Albans "the substance that got the field were household men and feed men". I would therefore tend not to include levies at all in a WOTR army. Most of the time they were only there for the plunder and avoided fighting if at all possible. which has the weaker (non elite, so to speak) bow of c. 50lbs draw weight. The rest of the infantry can be up to another 60% longbow, with unarmored predominating, light and medium filling out the rest – in other words, it is possible to field all 85% of the "infantry" as archers. But the total good longbow – 70lb and over 100lb draw weights – are limited to 25% and 10% respectively of total longbow mustered. This is obviously not as potent archery as appeared on the continent during the HYW, the reason being that those rather small armies were hand picked from the best of the archers, whereas the WotR armies had a lot of lesser quality bow mixed in. You are invited to comment on this set of assertions of mine! :) … I find I am uncomfortable with this idea that there were "grades" of archers. There is no indication of any such distinction in the primary sources. Either you were an archer (you had a bow and arrows) or you weren't. |
Great War Ace | 05 Oct 2014 7:29 a.m. PST |
I understand your reluctance to consider "grades of archers", but the reality is that in order to get the real archers you had to train them, which left a considerable number of unacceptable archers, those that didn't make the grade. The law stated that all able bodied yeomen would train weekly with the bow. And while the law was in force that is what England's freemen were famous for. No amount of training is going to greatly increase a naturally weak frame and turn it into a muscly yeoman. There are limits to which a body will go and no further. Weaker men were left at home during "the wars". Yet the WotR occurred right in their own backyards depending on where the next fracas happened to fall out. That involved interested locals, of which the dominant part were yeomen of varying quality. You are probably correct to assert that the weaker or less attached men were there mainly for the plunder and so forth and avoided fighting. The actual troops in the line were probably the real war bow and other indentured troops. "Billmen" in my army list are included in the infantry. So yes, if the player wants his army to max out on "infantry", the remaining fifteen percent would all be MAA with horses, with the provision that on the Scots border you could also have "borderers", essentially light cavalry with light crossbows. These are even less likely to be involved in a field battle, i.e. wargame, but they are fun troops to play with regardless of historical limitations…. |
MajorB | 05 Oct 2014 8:23 a.m. PST |
which left a considerable number of unacceptable archers, those that didn't make the grade. No, I think they became billmen instead. No amount of training is going to greatly increase a naturally weak frame and turn it into a muscly yeoman. Actually, I disagree with this view too. My son trained as an archer as a teenager. He was pulling 38lb by the age of 15. If he had continued training I see no reason why he could not be pulling 100lb+ at his age now of 24. It is a known fact that physical training builds muscle and strength. That is how body builders develop. You are probably correct to assert that the weaker or less attached men were there mainly for the plunder and so forth and avoided fighting. Actually, that's not what I asserted. I was referring to the levies as opposed to the paid professionals. The paid professionals were the household men and feed men – "feed" in this sense meaning those that have been paid a fee. Levies OTOH were not paid and were usually only there for the plunder (in lieu of pay). the remaining fifteen percent would all be MAA with horses, I don't think a minimum of 15% mounted can be justified from the primary sources. For example at Tewkesbury (1471) the Yorkist army of ~5,000 had a body of "200 spearmen" place in ambush. It is usually agreed that these 200 spearmen were mounted and probably the only mounted troops on the battlefield. That's only 4%. There are several other battles where there is no evidence for the presence of mounted men on the battlefield at all. The doctrine in the WotR was ride to the battlefield and then fight on foot. with the provision that on the Scots border you could also have "borderers", essentially light cavalry with light crossbows. Which WotR battle are you thinking of for the presence of Scots light cavalry with crossbows? |
Great War Ace | 05 Oct 2014 8:40 a.m. PST |
None. But the borderers were there all the same. A WotR "period" battle does not have to be only between Lancaster and York. I agree that "MAA with horses" only allows the potential to be mounted. That's why I said "with horses", instead of "mounted MAA". But there was at least one battle which saw a cavalry charge: Blore Heath…. |
MajorB | 05 Oct 2014 10:00 a.m. PST |
But the borderers were there all the same. A WotR "period" battle does not have to be only between Lancaster and York. Indeed, the whole point about the WotR is that they were not wars between Lancaster and York, just that it was these two great houses that disputed the succession. The only recorded instance of troops from Scotland getting involed in the period was in the Lancastrian army of Margaret in 1461, leading up to 2nd St Albans. Even then most of these Scots would have been levies (not retinue troops) so would not have been involved in the fighting. Tne only way that "Scots" borderers from the "English" side of the border would have been involved would have been if they had been called out as retinue troops by the Wardens of the English Marches. Again, I am not aware of any documentary evidence to support this. I agree that "MAA with horses" only allows the potential to be mounted. That's why I said "with horses", instead of "mounted MAA". I do not see any reason to distinguish between 15% "with horses" and the rest. ALL the MAA would have had horses, as indeed would most if not all of the other troops, as I have previously said. The question is how many of them actually fought mounted? But there was at least one battle which saw a cavalry charge: Blore Heath…. Actually two cavalry charges at Blore Heath… Numbers at Blore Heath are difficult. It is believed that Audley had about 6-8,000 men and that two cavalry charges were repulsed by the Yorkists before a third attack by 4,000 dismounted men was also defeated. If we assume that there was no mounting/dismounting during the battle then we have 2-4,000 mounted troops or anywhere between 30-50% mounted in the Lancastrian army. However, that is purely conjecture. The primary sources do not say how many men were involved in either of the cavalry charges and it could just as easily have been a much smaller (or even a much bigger!) number. And Blore Heath (along with Tewkesbury and Bosworth) are I think the only battles in the WotR where there is evidence for the use of mounted troops. |
Great War Ace | 05 Oct 2014 12:11 p.m. PST |
Yes, limiting borderers to "the border" region would be reasonable. Seeing borderers in an army well to the south would be fantasy. "Purely conjecture" is what wargaming is mostly made of! :) If we can pull numbers up that are plausible, then further flesh out the details with variations, as you indulge in above, that is how the best (most fun) results are obtained. I think that the defeated remnants of the Lancastrian cavalry charge(s) dismounted for that final attack on foot. Anyway, now we really have digressed…. |
MajorB | 05 Oct 2014 12:55 p.m. PST |
"Purely conjecture" is what wargaming is mostly made of! When necessaery, but I prefer to base my wargaming, wherever possible, on recorded history. I was going to say recorded historical fact, but there are examples in the WotR where accepted "fact" has subsequently been proved wrong! |
|