"Bosworth Field" Topic

I have posted some images on my Blog to inspire the painting of tabards (or whatever they were then called) and copious livery on the new Perry releases.

link

Cool – I have had this poster since I was quite young – I used to go the the battlefield for my birthday most years

Is that realistic horse barding for the era?

It looks like 13th century rather then 15th, though I am not that familiar with the developments in England.

It looks like 13th century rather then 15th, though I am not that familiar with the developments in England.

Agreed. Definitely more 13th century than 15th.

The Perry Miniatures mounted men-at-arms for the Wars of the Roses do not include any cloth barding.

Well if I do recall, Shakespeare's, Richard the III original draft opening lines by Sweet Rich, goes like this "Now is the winter of our discontent; Made glorious summer by this son of York and his barded horse"
But I think in the subsequent rewrite the horse was left out :) so even then they thought horse barding cool and wanted it in. Now if that doesn't give one license to do a bit of fanciful barding for late 15th century knights I should think if he and all those Italian renaissance painters can then so can we.
Cheers an thanks beautiful bit of reference. (I always wanted to see it when I heard about it way back when- think it was advertised in Battle magazine?- so thanks again)

Barding is seen at tournaments in the 15th century. The mounted knights are also wearing tilting helms and not battle helms. I've never seen sallets with crests on them, as shown on a couple of Yorkist MAA….

Ace, are the tilting helms at least "in period"? I have seen Russian 'Lead Soldier" 54mm with tilting figures wearing salat helmets.

My Russian 54mm Wars of the Roses vignettes compromised by modeling gothic armour over heraldic barding. Any views on this? I'm not setting up debate over 28 vs 54. We all know 28mm are more likely to get it right!

However here is the Blog link:

link

With the basics now fairly well covered by Perrys, it would be great to see them make some "specials" that could cover either the Tilt Yard, or maybe more flamboyant characters on the field of battle. Great canvas for the detail artists out there. I'm working on a checkered sallet helmed figure or two (commissioned for me, not painted by me!) which will test my friend artist to the maximum. Yes, 28mm.

My Russian 54mm Wars of the Roses vignettes compromised by modeling gothic armour over heraldic barding. Any views on this?

There is no evidence for the use of metal horse armour (apart from possibly the chamfron) in the Wars of the Roses.

All the surviving examples of horse armour are either from the 16th century or later or from European countries other than Britain.

The tilting helms are 15th century and therefore accurate for the period. So too are the sallets.

As for "no metal horse armor" at all during the WotR: artists have depicted such for many years. My favorite illustration for the period is this one:

The tilting helms are 15th century and therefore accurate for the period.

Precisely. Tilting helms for the tilt, not the battlefield.

As for "no metal horse armor" at all during the WotR: artists have depicted such for many years.

Just because artists have protrayed cavalry in the WOTR with metal horse armour does not mean that it is historically accurate.

My favorite illustration for the period is this one:

I also notice a soldier with a crossbow in that picture. There is no historical evidence for the use of crossbows on the WOTR battlefield. So that is at least two things wrong with that picture.

Maybe, maybe not. As "you all" have pointed out, evidence, and the lack of it, allows for quite a bit vis-à-vis interpretation. One crossbowman and one armored horsey do not units of such make. But there's every reason to suppose, given the existence of both, that either/or could show up on a WotR battlefield, here or there. I think the picture rocks….

But there's every reason to suppose, given the existence of both, that either/or could show up on a WotR battlefield, here or there.

I disagree. Firstly full metal horse armour did not really appear anywhere until the 16th century. Secondly the crossbow was a garrison weapon – used in the defence of castles and so on. On the WOTR battlefield, crossbows would be at a severe disadvantage compared to archers with the warbow.

I think the picture rocks….

Perhaps it does, it's just that it's not historically accurate.

Milanese mercs had full plate armored horses at Verneiul in 1424.

Mercs at Bosworth and other battles may have had crossbows. Merc handgunner were certainly used by Yorkists despite disadvantages v. Warbow.

TomT

Was at the Royal Armouries at the weekend their horse armour dates from 1480.

Yeah, "Cataphract" horse armor is a tad predating the 16th century. Medieval versions ranged from thick housings through leather reinforcements to full mail. Then along came the reinvention of plate armor, and horses started getting it too, and mail went away as plate increased. To assert that the 15th century had no metal horse armor cannot be supported with facts.

Crossbows were always at a severe disadvantage versus "warbows", yet crossbows were used copiously throughout the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance….

Milanese mercs had full plate armored horses at Verneiul in 1424.

Yes indeed, but of course that was in mainland Europe, not England in the WOTR.

Mercs at Bosworth and other battles may have had crossbows. Merc handgunner were certainly used by Yorkists despite disadvantages v. Warbow.

Do you have any evidence for the use of crossbows at Bosworth? Yes, mercenary handgunners are documented at 2nd St Albans in 1461. The Earl of Warwick was apparently quite "keen" on these newfangled weapons. Needless to say they failed dismally…

Was at the Royal Armouries at the weekend their horse armour dates from 1480.

But I think you'll find it wasn't English horse armour…

Yeah, "Cataphract" horse armor is a tad predating the 16th century. Medieval versions ranged from thick housings through leather reinforcements to full mail.

Again, can you offer any evidence to support it's use in England during the WOTR? A single example of English horse armour dating from the 15th century would suffice …

Crossbows were always at a severe disadvantage versus "warbows", yet crossbows were used copiously throughout the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance….

But as I have pointed out before, there is no evidence to support the use of crossbows in the WOTR on the battlefield.

I suppose it might happen if someone emptied his castle, or fortified manor, to go meet the enemy for a variety of reasons. There is enough factual detail lacking in even the best documented battles to allow for the possibility of crossbows and certainly armored horses. As far as I know, all plate armor was imported. There is no such thing as "English horse armor". The great armor making centers were in Northern Italy and in Germany.

Why would the nobility in England, who wore imported plate armor themselves, not import armor for their mounts?…

I suppose it might happen if someone emptied his castle, or fortified manor, to go meet the enemy for a variety of reasons.

That is of course possible, it's just not documented in any WOTR battle.

There is no such thing as "English horse armour".

Correct. I was referring to locally made armour for horses or even imported armour that dates to the right period (i.e. 1455 – 1487). As far as I know there is none. The armour referred to above at the Royal Armouries in Leeds is almost certainly imported and (assuming it really does date from the 1480s) would have been intended for use in the joust, not on the battlefield.

Why would the nobility in England, who wore imported plate armor themselves, not import armor for their mounts?…

Because they did not habitually fight mounted. Why spend an awful lot of money on expensive horse armour that you did not intend to use on the battlefield? Bear in mind that a full suit of harness for a man cost the equivalent in today's terms of a top of the range sports car.

Yes, the latest in horse armor would cost an equivalent. But there are many times more sports cars than "top end", and they can even perform as well or better than "top end" cars. The point being that horse armor has always come in a variety of types, with the mid to lower "end" being much more affordable than the latest style. While plate armor tended to be imported from German and Italian armor making centers, local smiths would be making armor that functioned but certainly wasn't stylish.

We look back on the WotR battles and see a preconceived idea that everyone would ditch the horses and battle on foot. I don't think that mindset existed in the 15th century, anymore than it had existed since the Normans came to England. The nobility considered themselves mounted warriors first, and prudent tacticians second. That means economy played a dominant role in their battle tactics. If the battle could be fought without horses then they dismounted. But there are a number of examples throughout the Middle Ages when English chivalry attempted mounted combat. Two separated examples would be Falkirk and Blore Heath. With longbows figuring prominently in everyone's minds, horse armor would make more sense in England than anywhere else.

I don't see evidence of a lack of horse armor. It just doesn't get mentioned, possibly because it was as common then as sports cars are now….

local smiths would be making armor that functioned but certainly wasn't stylish.

I thought we had agreed that there was no such thing as "English horse armour"?

The nobility considered themselves mounted warriors first, and prudent tacticians second.

We look back on the WotR battles and see a preconceived idea that all MAA were "the nobility" – which of course they weren't. We also see the preconceived idea that MAA fought with sword and lance. While that was true in the 14th century, by the mid to late 15th century, the preferred weapon for an MAA was a poll-axe. A poll-axe is not a weapon easily used on horseback.

Say what you will, the evidence is there that WOTR armies rode to war and fought on foot. There are only two battles in the WOTR where the use of mounted troops is documented – Blore Heath as you mention and Tewkesbury. In both cases it is clear that this mounted element formed only a small part of the army.

With longbows figuring prominently in everyone's minds, horse armor would make more sense in England than anywhere else.

Actually, just the opposite. The presence of warbows on both sides was one of the reasons that precluded the widespread use of cavalry. If horse armour had been as common as you suggest this would not have been the case and we would see much more evidence of mounted action than there is. The warbow had been proved to be deadly against mounted troops in the HYW. Hence HYW English armies fighting on foot. Fighting on foot was thus an established English tactical posture that was continued into the WotR.

I thought we had agreed that there was no such thing as "English horse armour"?

Yes, "we" did.

Look, this isn't going anywhere. I happen to believe that horse armor existed as an option throughout the period. We do have a few battles where mounted combat was tried, even going up against archers. The few mounted men with horse armor of any kind or amount would be in front, probably never more than 15% of the total as a maximum. This is what I would put as a limit on wargamers building an army of miniatures….

I certainly wouldn't sign up for there being no such thing as English horse armour.

We have evidence going back to the High Medieval period of horse armour being used by 'English' nobles. So why would they suddenly stop using it just when plate armour was evolving to such a sophisticated level? Indeed, what evidence we have suggests increasing use of protection for mounts rather than less.

Although it is not clear where it was manufactured, we also have evidence for a distinct style of armour for English nobles who fought in the early fifteenth century in France through surviving effigies. An updated version of Toby Capwell's thesis is awaited with baited breath for more on this. Note that none of these suits survive in any other form and horse armour was not depicted as part of their effigy (although the great helms they wore for mounted combat were incorporated as rests for their heads).

So given that a unique English style for suits existed, why would they have used an imported style for their mounts rather than one that matched their own?

As to foot v mounted, professional warrior elites from the British Isles seemingly trained to do both and, generally, adopted the formation best suited to the task at hand. So we have examples of mounted combat throughout the later stages of the Hundred Years War and during the Wars of the Roses. Yes, they usually chose to dismount, but not exclusively so.

The penchant for dismounting to fight is actually very old, starting with the Anglo-Saxon period and continuing after the Conquest. Looking at the early 11th century battles, most, sometimes all, of the chivalry fought on foot. Mounted combat did diminish in frequency and involved numbers as the centuries passed, but never went away.

I concur with your logic on the implied use of horse armor, based on other evidence besides surviving "kit"….

We have evidence going back to the High Medieval period of horse armour being used by 'English' nobles.

We do? Where?

MajorB, do you believe that caparisons and otherwise barding did not cover horse armor? Because chivalry in England definitely made use of barding/caparisons in earlier centuries….

MajorB, do you believe that caparisons and otherwise barding did not cover horse armor?

No, caparisons and other barding did not usually cover metal horse armour.
link

I agree. Caparisons "did not usually cover metal horse armor". That is why I said I limit total "cataphract" armor class to 15% of cavalry. That might be generous for England, but hey, armored horses became more common, not less so, as missile fire increased in effectiveness. Other army lists I have made limit horse armor to 10%. The upper end is 25%….

We do? Where?

We have a number of letters patent from King John, for example,
'The Sheriff of Hereford is ordered to surrender to the King two pair of iron caparisons, the two coats of mail, and one hauberk, as Peter le Burgess deliver them to him, so that the King have them at Nottingham on the Sunday next after the feast of Saint Laurence. Teste 5th August at Woodstock'.
link

No, caparisons and other barding did not usually cover metal horse armour.

See above, caparisons could seemingly be metal rather than just cloth.

Apologies, double post.

two pair of iron caparisons

Intriguing. I confess I am somewhat puzzled by the reference to a "pair". Why would caparisons be in pairs?

Front and rear, saddle between. It seems obvious. Ancient horse armor often dispensed with the rear one altogether. I believe this was common in the middle ages too for "eastern" armies. I know the Byzantines had cavalry that were only armored in front. And Poitiers has already been mentioned, where the French cavalry were armored in front only….

… caparisons could seemingly be metal rather than just cloth.

Yes, of course. But how common? There is always a practical, economic limit to the proportion of armored horses. What do you believe it should be for a reasonable medieval war games army?…

"… But how common? There is always a practical, economic limit to the proportion of armored horses. What do you believe it should be for a reasonable medieval war games army?…"
Similarly, I wonder how many plate clad, head to foot, knights and gentlemen there might have been.

Why would caparisons be in pairs?

Well spotted, MajB. GWA's solution may be correct, but I'll go back and double check the original text :-)

But how common?

To be honest, I'm not sure yet. Another of John's letters patent To the knights of Hainaut, Flanders, and Brabant commands them to come with horse and arms, and iron caparisons for their horses, and other armour. However, a similar one to veteran Marcher lords mentions only the horses and arms. More digging required :-)

Similarly, I wonder how many plate clad, head to foot, knights and gentlemen there might have been.

Anne Curry's splendidly led research on the HYW helps with that one.

What I wonder is if the preference for fighting on foot was just a tactical development or also an economical decission. If I remember correctly the costs involved in purchasing and sustaining a warhorse could cripple the finances of low income nobility. It does make sense that most of them would prefer to purchase cheaper horses, that could transport them to the battlefield but that being not trained to fight were left in the rear while their owners fought on foot. In that case, only the higher nobility would be willing enough to risk their expensive warhorses on battle. Wouldn't make sense that they would also try to protect their investment by any means, i.e. with caparisons?

Any proper MAA had several horses. He never rode his warhorse (destrier) except in earnest, but used a rounsey for travel. His servants or otherwise retinue could ride the pack horses and spare mounts. These were cheap enough. English armies had been riding to battle since the days of Alfred the Great at least.

But it is correct to point out (as Basil has done) that a destrier worthy of the name was the most expensive item a MAA had to buy and maintain. Thus exposing them to unnecessary hazard was always avoided as a top priority. Because of this tendency, economy modified tactics, and mounted combat became increasingly rare as the Middle Ages progressed. By the time of the WotR, the warhorse had become something of an affectation. Used in the joust and as a small reserve, possibly, but rarely otherwise. Again, a genuine MAA would have one, but he would not use it except to establish or prove his status. In the event of a lost battle, his servants, pages or esquires, would be tasked with bringing up a riding mount to escape on, and get his expensive warhorse away before the enemy could seize it. There would be no point in riding away from a lost battle on a warhorse when any good quality nag would do just as well if not better….