"sword sidearm for late medieval/early renaissance soldiers?" Topic

I'm putting together some Perry plastic mercenaries. It's kind of fun. I'm puzzled about what to do about swords. The officer bodies have a belt sculpted for attaching a sword scabbard to the figures but the rest do not. There are extra swords in scabbards to attach (not enough for every figure) but it's not clear where they would go. Some of the bodies have a dagger sculpted on.

I guess I had just assumed that pikemen at least would have a sword also. Is that not the case?

What about crossbowmen or handgunners?

And I think that the same bodies are used for WotR archers and I had always assumed they carried swords also. Is that not the case either?

Swords were expensive. Not everyone could afford one.

A "katzbalger" or similar sidearm was cheap enough. I think such a short sword would have been the most common sidearm for missile troops and pikemen or halberdiers, etc….

Or long daggers (rondel)

Most of the archers have a small dagger/sword molded on their side, I believe.

With improvements in the production of steel and with the creation of effective "arms industries" in towns like Milan, Passau and Solingen (to name a few) swords had become available in a wide range of types and prices. Most professional soldiers could aford a sword and they were not limited to short swords either, after all the 2nd half of the 15th Century is when the 1 1/2-sword is at the height of it's popularity. (Swiss pikemen liked it so much it became one of their distinguishing features in the 16th Century)

With improvements in the production of steel and with the creation of effective "arms industries" in towns like Milan, Passau and Solingen (to name a few) swords had become available in a wide range of types and prices.

Which still means that for the Wars of the Roses they would still have to be imported adding greatly to the cost. Archers were typically equipped with a long dagger (bollock dagger) rather than a sword.

There were more local producers to be found as well and if Swedish peasants could find the money to buy twohanded swords with Passau blades I find it hard to believe that the more affluent English Yeoman could not find the cash to buy a sword made in London or in the Netherlands if he desired to do so. The Bridport muster roll in fact lists more men with swords than with daggers and that is a town levy, not professional soldiers like those that made up the retinues of the nobility.

Archers came in a wide variety of types, French and Burgundian Ordonnace archers were invariably armed with swords, a man would simply not get accepted into service without one. English retinue archers serving in the last decades of the HYW were noted for their fine equipment including silver decorated sallets and fine swords and swords were universal among the Yorkist archers that Dominic Mancini saw in England in 1483.

Archers raised by commission of array like the Bridport levy would be less well equipped but even in Bridport swords were the second most common weapon (bows being most common) and there were more swords (69) than daggers (64) among the levy.

Thanks. I hate it when figure makers do a nice job on figures but leave out an important detail. I guess I'll glue swords on them where I can, but it's going to be pretty difficult to get them on some given the arm positions. Grrrrr.

Swedish peasants could find the money to buy twohanded swords with Passau blades I find it hard to believe that the more affluent English Yeoman could not find the cash to buy a sword made in London or in the Netherlands if he desired to do so.

Why do you think an English yeoman was more affluent than a Swedish peasant?

Besides, the yeoman, being a man in a retinue, would not have to pay for a a sword himself, it would be paid for by his indentured captain.

Swords were easily available and not terribly expensive in late 13th C. Scotland (see Robert I's legislation which is pretty certainly just a repetition of earlier laws and entries in CDS etc)so presumably they were n't too costly in medieval England either.
Most English yeoman would not be indentured soldiers, but those who were would generally be expected to have their own kit. Spears or bills might be bought by the government, but it's not clear that they were issued so much as sold to the troops, however a sword would be a personal item.

Worth checking out Prestwich's 'Medieval Warfare; the English Experience (rough title – I don't have my copy to hand) and I've a feeling Anne Curry has done some work on personal weaponry. They are both excellent scholars and I would trust their judgement.

Most English yeoman would not be indentured soldiers,

Really? So if a yeoman was not indentured then he was not a member of a retinue?

Nope; one is not the same as the other. Medieval indentures are contracts (particularly between the king and a captain) for soldiers. Even in a prolonged period of warfare the overwhelming majority of yeomen (like everyone else) would not serve under arms at all, let alone in an actual battle.
Retinue is a much-misunderstood term, but roughly speaking, we should n't think in terms of private standing armies so much as an obligation to serve if called upon…which might well never happen.