"Barons War - Lance Pennants?" Topic

Would Baron's War and Scottish War of Independence nobles have lance pennants?

Yes, and heraldry.

Wardlaw is spot on – do bear in mind that the end of one is half a century before the start of the other. so your Scottish wars men-at-arms (both sides) would have a good deal more plate and tending toward bacinets rather than buckets on the head and barding was very much the order of the day.

Well – a third of a century. Sugar loaf helms rather than bascinets for the Falkirk end of the war. Transitional types with a lifting visor but still looking rather like a sugar loaf for the Bannockburn end.

Pennons would be used by knights bachelor. Bannerets and high would have a banner, the size getting bigger with rank.

Thanks. I am going to focus on Lewes but still play up to Bannockburn. Just squint my eyes some to ignore any out of date armor.

I'm guessing the lance pennants would match the heraldry colors to some extent?

link will give the idea. Based on the heraldry but often altered to fit the shape.

If you wanted to use the banners, they tended to be taller and thinner in the mid 13th, getting squarer with time.

I don't think the Scots would have lifting visors at Bannockburn. Info that I've come across while researching is that their nobles first got them just before Otterburn in 1388.

They had brought over French armourers, who were alarmed at how outdated the Scots' armour was, and they fitted visors onto the Scots' open-faced bascinets.

Interested to see the info miniMo. I've not yet come across any record or narrative evidence to indicate that Scottish troops in the WofI looked any different from English ones.

I was thinking the same, I'd be delighted if miniMo has found something though.

Yup; me too.
I looked long and hard for all that sort of thing in relation to my thesis, Bannockburn monograph, 2nd War of Independence and Wallace books, Robert I source book and many associated articles/papers/lectures.
Did n't find anything, but that does n't mean it is n't there to be found. All the same, Duke is quite right; they're only models (toys/tokens) after all. OTH if one gave 1944/5 Pzgrs Pickelhaubs people would be a bit critical.

Which reminds me, I must get around to cutting the spikes off

Not so bad for 28s I suppose, but a bit of challenge in 6mm I think.

Thanks all.

I FINALLY have started moving on this project (and my Raphia project). I have had all the figs for about 2 years in a box, so painting is now underway. Hope to get all of it done within a year. Probably 600 figs.

Project Lewes is entirely to blame for a wallet being lighter now. Outstanding website, particularly his new game board of Lewes.

Would "penoncelle" be a lance pennant or a mini banner carried upright? I believe it is a small pennon on a lance?

You might find this of a nterest.

link

"I don't think the Scots would have lifting visors at Bannockburn. Info that I've come across while researching is that their nobles first got them just before Otterburn in 1388."

link is the type of helmet I'm thinking of. Some have a lifting visor and can be seen in the pictures of Heinrich VIII's Romfahrt which was about the same date as Bannockburn. When closed, the visor is far less obvious than in some later types. The pictures do postdate the events by a few years, so I'd be happy to accept that opening visors would be rare, but that reinforces that the helm is still being worn. Going by those pics, a bascinet may have been worn but a helm would generally be put on over it for battle – by those who had one anyway. The pointed helm is also shown in depictions of the battles between the French and the Flemish of this period and they would be at the cutting edge of military fashion.

I'm not suggesting the bascinet and visor type which would be more typical later on as in link

The visor factoid lodged in my brain while I was researching building and painting the Otterburn army. Not for the first time, I wish I had made a footnote card to file with an army!

Can't find the quote right now in Osprey's Otterburn 1388 campaign book. Would take a major dig through the library to see where else it might have come from.

Earliest example I've seen of a visored bacinet (lifty-upy visor type) is a marginalia drawing from about 1296/8 – Exchequer Rolls I think, but certainly PRO. In 1296 the Scots had n't had a war for a long time, but one had been on the horizon for a couple of years so people were pretty certainly buying new kit, and being fairly prosperous (due to good agricultural years and not having any wars) and highly fashion-conscious they're unlikely to have bought dated stuff. The Sugar loaf would have been very uncool, but some people would still have had them – a bit like the guy at the party who was still wearing love beads and flares in the 1990s.
By the 1380s things are a bit different due to the relative poverty caused by the black death and repeated (though defeated) English attempts at conquest, but even so I'm not aware of Scots lagging behind in armour etc, however you do have to be wary of French narrative evidence in relation to Scotland (and England too). The writers/compliers generally had no direct personal knowledge of Scotland or England, but mostly had a political/social agenda to pursue – largely to do with telling French readers how much nicer the French were than anyone else.
Scottish writers have a similar attitude to England and vice versa, especially writers at a great physical distance. Hence Grey (Scalacronica) is very much less Scotophobic – and very much more reliable – than chroniclers from the south of England. Similarly Bower is more Anglophobic than….well…anyone outside France really.
Also, do be wary of Ospreys. many of the them are very good, but the one of the Scottish and Welsh wars of Edward I is pretty poor – at least in relation to Scotland (I don't know much about Wales), as is the Bannockburn one. More than happy to send you a reading list of reputable – if dull – scholarship if you PM me.

"The Sugar loaf would have been very uncool, but some people would still have had them – a bit like the guy at the party who was still wearing love beads and flares in the 1990s."

Why then are they the predominant type shown in art of the early 14th?

From Kortrijk – about 10 years after the start of the Scottish war

or, from a picture made a decade after Bannockburn

compare with the cervellieres/early bascinets worn in the same manuscript – usually when not in combat. Some pictures show the same person in this helmet when not in combat but in a heaume when in combat. It is likely that the smaller helmet with camail attached is worn under the larger one.

The statue of Cangrande I della Scala shows the heaume ready to be worn over the bascinet. (c.1320)
The knight of the Lutrell Psalter shows the same (1320-40)

FWIW, myarmoury.com reckons face protection for bascinets wasn't common until the 1330s.

Also FWIW, Bruce's seal shows him in a flat topped helm but seal styles could be conservative.

Largely a product of artists not spending much time around armies – not a million miles away from movie depictions with Pershings standing in for Tigers etc.
As a general rule you're better to rely on record evidence over anything else, so when you read bills and receipts of people buying bacinets in the early 1300s it's a good bet that they are buying bacinets.
Beware also the history of weapons experts. They do rather tend (like a lot of easy-access medieval book-writers) to rely of seriously outdated and sometimes positively dodgy secondary sources…Oman, Gardiner, Jones and so on. For an example of how dire that can be you need go no farther then the new and dreadful Bannockburn visitor centre.

Yes they are buying bascinets. You can see them in the examples I have given – to be worn under the heaumes. There is a reference to 'bacinum' in the Close Rolls of Edward I.

The artists' styles have changed from the portrayals of the previous generation and change again in the next. They have picked up on details such as the ailettes and changes to shields and surcoats. They are familiar with all sorts of details.
They are also changing their style consistently across Western Europe. Are you saying that the artists of Italy and Flanders are more familiar with each others' art than in the armour of their own patrons? Are they really consistently showing armour from 50 years earlier (meaning that the artists of that period are also showing armour of an earlier period etc).

Also, these things are made for the guys wearing the helmets. The patron of the manuscript showing Heinrich VII's journey was a participant. If the army is out of date by a decade then it is still relevant for the period of Bannockburn and these are the premier men of the HRE so would be in the top fashions.

The Holkham Bible (which starts with an injunction to the artist to "Now do it well and thoroughly, for it will be shown to important people") has a number of men with visored heaumes – the mail doesn't attach to the helmet but extends underneath.

Some figures wear bascinets with a camail but none have camail and visor. This is from a period almost 50 years after you say that helms were old fashioned.

Art isn't always accurate, but the trend of artistic style is consistent across a range of areas. Your Pershing analogy is closer to the example of Mongols shown in e.g. the Battle of Mohi. The Hungarians are shown in accurate styles because the artist is familiar with them. The Mongols are fanciful because the artists are unfamiliar. In your case, the filmgoer is also unfamiliar with the tanks in most cases. With medieval documents the inaccuracy is more likely to be that portrayals show equipment which is _too_ modern as the artist shows what they are familiar with. This can be seen in the 15th century depiction of Bannockburn. Using Challenger IIs for a film about Cambrai.

If there are records of the purchase of visored bascinets from the late 13th/early 14th century, fair enough. I suspect that most references will merely say bascinets (as a quick trawl through 14th century close rolls does) with no reference to being visored. Since we know from the art that they wore them, this adds nothing more.

In the picture above of the Courtrai Chest, 'The arrival of Guy of Namur and William of Jόlich at Bruges', both noblemen don't wear a great-helm, as the rest of their train do, but a skullcap with mail coif. In battle they would probably add a Sugar Loaf helm like the rest of their men.

14th Century Flemish soldiers on the Courtrai or Oxford Chest (Kist van Kortrijk)

Druzhina
14th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

I have to interject that I really like this place. Where else can you ask a question about lance pennants and start an in depth conversation about skullcaps and visors? Very good example of why my kids consider me having severely nerdly hobbies. But that's one of the things I love about TMP. Of course it's making me very insecure that someone is going to catch me red handed and throw a flag on me when I'm caught using Barons War visored bascinets in my 16x6" Bannockurn game, but again I can't help but love it.

Seriously this is extremely informative and I enjoy the back and forth learning experience.

Nobody should throw a flag (a sweet expression that I've never before encountered). For one thing it's all a bit perceptual – do you rely more heavily on artistic representations or record/narrative material – and for another they're your toys, nobody else's. OTH if you're serious about a great big Bannockburn game mail me…
thathistorybloke@outlook.com …and I'll send you a reading list.
There are some things to avoid – anything that smacks of Braveheart, armourless spearmen, Scottish short bows, light cavalry, circular schiltroms and swamps.

Yeah – we do seem to have rather hijacked your thread!

Obviously it is up to everyone what they put on the table. I only made the comment about the appearance because often people do want to use the most appropriate figures available and don't necessarily know that an opinion on a thread is debateable.

For 15mm figures, the difference between an early visored bascinet with a fairly flat face and one of the opening heaumes is fairly hard to see anyway. It might be the same in 28mm but I'm less familiar with the ranges. Just don't go for a pig-faced type.

Going back to pennons, the one shown on the Luttrell Psalter (10 or so years post Bannockburn) shows a triangular pennon attached on one of the long sides as shown a lot in Spanish illustrations.

It would add a bit of variety and can be easier to show the arms.

Looking through some source material, I've found something from 20 years post Bannockburn regarding pennons.
A group of 100 mounted and 100 foot soldiers is being assembled to go to Scotland. The costs include 107 pennons, 6 banners and the lances to bear them. How these are divided between the foot and mounted isn't said but it does show the pennons to be common at this date, so probably earlier too especially as it seems that these are only hobelars, not men at arms.
link

As for pennoncelle, it seems to have been used in two ways. Either it was a small pennon (and translations from Latin may render it as either it seems) or it could used for a much longer streamer type, as flown from a ships mast for instance.

'been an interesting discussion though has n't it? I'll have a poke around for the marginalia drawing. I rather think it's from a pay document relating to Wales, but I'm not sure about that.
Thinking about the Edward III letter; do you suppose it might be indicative of a contemporary blurring of the distinction between hobelars and MAA? I seem to recall reading a letter from the governor of Berwick saying that his garrison hobelars were just as well mounted and well armed as his MAA and implying that he'd like to pay them accordingly.
Interesting that the troops are being issued with lances rather than providing their own. I have often wondered if the issue of munition weapons was perhaps more common that we generally expect – the capture of a cache of spears in Scotland c.1332/3 for example, similarly a draft of English infantry being issued with bows and spears c. 1320s (I think it was c.1320s….; it's been a a few years now since I worked on this stuff and I don't have Rot. Scot. to hand even if I could bear to wade through it!
I'd be interested in your thoughts Swampster.

I have found a reference to "bacinettos ferreos cum visariis" from an Edward II roll just after Bannockburn (June 1316).

Oddly, all the references to bascinets in these rolls refer to them being for infantry but I think that is due to it being about the King's expenditure rather than knights having to equip themselves.

Whether visariis means quite what we think of as visor is difficult to tell as I can't find another usage of it online. Some early bascinets have a face covering which basically pulls the aventail over more of the face with a small rigid section.

Even if it is a full visor, I don't think it necessarily contradicts the artwork – just that headgear of say the Holkham bible knights get called a bascinet rather than a helm. As I said in the last post, the external difference can be slight. Most bascinets have the camail attached -looks like these early forms are worn over a mail hood instead. That may be why they are bascinets, since they are worn over mail rather than a helm worn over a smaller bascinet.

Nor does it mean that helms were old fashioned at the beginning of the wars, which was my original point.

Interesting that there is reference to 'men at arms' at the top but 'hobelars' at the bottom – unless the hobelars are yet another group of men though it doesn't seem so. OTOH, a 1322 specifies 300 men-at-arms, 1,000 hobelers, and 6,000 footmen ordered to come from Ireland.

It also appears that only half of the 200 men are provided with a 'lance' – just those who have a pennon or banner. I suspect that all the horsemen get one and just the 'standard bearers'/'officers'/whatever of the footmen. They likely have to bring their own. Unless the horsemen already have their own with pennons so it is the foot that get provided with them!

In a 1324 document, the king has an investigation made into stuff lost when a manor was seized by the Scots (I think -it is a bit confused). This also has 100 lances, along with 55 aketons and 30 'polhaches' (plus lots of domestic gear – even the cost of lost sheets and a pan is given!) Similar to your 1332/3 example I guess.

If the foot were archers it would make it easier, but I don't think they are – archers are specified as such whereas footmen are non-archers. Also, the City of London seems to be called upon for non-archers (see the summons for Edward's army in 1323). The minimum armour of the footmen is often specified, but not the weapon. Does this mean it is obvious that they will bring some kind of weapon on a stick (as the earlier assizes said), or does it mean that they will be provided with one?

Just read a complaint by the Despensers against a bunch of nobles that they nicked, amongst other things, " arms
for 200 men, and other chattels, such as cross-bows, quarrels, lances, waggons {chars), carts and their tackle" going on to list chess-boards, nutmeg and ginger.

I won't list the other examples, but there do seem a fair few caches of arms mentioned, though not many in each place.

My prepared answer for when somebody might catch a minor anachronism in kit or army is: "Congratulations, you win a cookie!" =^,^=

In Tournament scenes, fresco in the Palazzo Comunale di San Gimignano, Italy, attributed to Azzo di Masetto are separate visors on helms to cover the lower part of the face, dated 1288-1292. A hinge is not apparent and they seem to be attached by a nasal to a ring around the top of the helm. Others have helms without a visor.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Spanish small triangular pennons are shown in the Cantigas de Santa Maria of Alfonso X, c.1284 where they are sometimes carried by common Spanish infantry

Druzhina
13th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

MiniMo…I won't even give them a cookie….largely, I suppose , becuase I've already eaten all the cookies.