"Musters and OOBs" Topic
7 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.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleJay Wirth shows how using inks makes it easier to paint a 15mm scale army.
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Featured Book Review
|
StCrispin | 08 Apr 2017 9:57 a.m. PST |
whenever i read musters and lists showing numbers from different "lances" and "companies", they always list the noble in charge, a squire, and a number of men at arms and bowmen. so my question is, on the gaming table (say for a skirmish) how would you represent a retinue? which category would typical spear or pole armed infantry fit into? Or really poorly armed "coutillers" i assume men at arms covers everyone from fully armoured men without titles to lesser equipped men? also, would you consider the squire a fighting man? I've certainly heard of squires fighting in combat,and even leading companies, but i also hear of them staying behind, holding horses and spare lances and such. again, i'm thinking in terms of low level skirmishes and raids. |
MajorB | 08 Apr 2017 1:38 p.m. PST |
What period are you talking about? |
StCrispin | 08 Apr 2017 1:41 p.m. PST |
oh yeah! i was referring to the HYW period |
Warspite1 | 08 Apr 2017 4:26 p.m. PST |
Some terms were hazy, even at the time. As the chronicles and records were often written by non-military men such as monks or clerks the term 'men at arms' could simply mean armed men rather than high quality knights or their near equivalents such as professional soldiers or well-equipped squires and younger sons. Even a rich merchant might turn out in full harness leading town levy or else fighting for the city states of Italy or the Low Countries. Likewise the term 'spear' often turns up in the 15th century when what is probably being meant is 'lance'. If you see spear do not automatically assume foot spearmen. In a game a retinue should share a livery – one colour or two colours split vertical 'per pale' while the commander might also wear this livery or else his personal heraldry. I am just finishing an article for the Lance and Longbow Society about livery colours and one discovery I made was that some lords could sport a second livery – either a new colour just for a tournament or else a different colour for his very immediate household. For example I found out that John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, had a black livery for himself and his close circle while the retainers probably wore red as indicated by his standard. For the Hundred Years War an English retinue would probably be a few 'knights' supported by longbow on a 5:1 or 10:1 proportion with increasing numbers of bill appearing after 1400. Remember that Welsh and Irish also fought alongside English in the HYW. Later units called 'lances' often featured a knight, a lighter cavalryman and variously armed foot soldiers but this is unworkable as a combat unit. These troops would be hived off to various units of same troop types when they arrived with the army. However, in a skirmish, if the 'lance' is travelling somewhere and suddenly caught in combat it might fight as an ad-hoc unit. Barry |
GildasFacit | 09 Apr 2017 10:37 a.m. PST |
Polearms (including long axes) have appeared in accounts of English and Scottish warfare throughout the medieval period, they don't just start to appear as 'Bills' after 1400. They were already popular in central & eastern Europe in a wide variety of forms. The increasing amounts of armour worn by the mid 14C reduced the effectiveness of spears so many 'professional' soldiers had already begun to use some form of polearm an well as more body armour for themselves. |
uglyfatbloke | 12 Apr 2017 6:36 a.m. PST |
A god rule of thumb is that men-at-arms means guys in full armour…cavalry, but may fight dismounted. Avoid 'peasant' types' with no armour at all- they're not really a feature of medieval armies. Squire is mostly 'esquire' in meaning; not a page or apprentice, bust a man-at-arms who is not a knight – an probably never will be. |
Druzhina | 12 Apr 2017 10:56 p.m. PST |
|
|