MajorB | 18 Jun 2019 11:39 a.m. PST |
Well? Anyone know of any evidence? |
Huscarle | 19 Jun 2019 10:01 a.m. PST |
Possibly some of Martin Schwartz's 2000+ German & Swiss mercenaries at Stoke Field, but I don't know of any evidence as to the composition of his force, apart from (contemporary sources stating that) they were well-armed and armoured. |
Mithmee | 19 Jun 2019 1:05 p.m. PST |
There use during that time was very likely but like everything else records of the Order of Battles is lacking. link Bows would have still seen more use but due to the 100 Years War and the War of the Roses the time of the English Longbow man was coming to an end due to the time it took to create one and most being killed off during the above wars. Plus the advent of gunpowder weapons also was a factor. |
MajorB | 19 Jun 2019 2:16 p.m. PST |
There use during that time was very likely but like everything else records of the Order of Battles is lacking. So no evidence for their use then? And I'm specifically asking about use in the field as opposed to siege warfare. |
Mithmee | 20 Jun 2019 7:18 p.m. PST |
Both sides did use foreign troops and some English would have picked some up during the 100 Years War. |
MajorB | 22 Jun 2019 6:58 a.m. PST |
some English would have picked some up during the 100 Years War. Yes, but did they use them in the field? |
Mithmee | 22 Jun 2019 11:18 a.m. PST |
Odds are good that they did. |
MajorB | 22 Jun 2019 12:18 p.m. PST |
Odds are good that they did. On what do you base such odds? |
Warspite1 | 23 Jun 2019 6:15 a.m. PST |
There is no doubt that crossbows were used, especially in sieges. I seem to recall that one of the London bishops wanted to defend his palace in 1450 and recruited 20 or so crossbowmen. When the Pastons recruited four men to defend Caister Castle in the late 1460s the proficiency of the four men to shoot and repair both handgonnes and crossbows was mentioned in the letter. There was no mention of longbow. It should also be mentioned that when Henry V invaded France in 1415 he had 100-120 crossbowmen with him. These would have been used for the siege of Harfleur and were probably left behind as part of the Harfleur garrison when he marched towards Agincourt. There is just an outside chance that a few crossbow were with English forces at Agincourt. Crossbows were good hunting weapons but I would not field more than 5% crossbow in an English unit at this period. If skirmishers then mix them with the handgonnes as there is European evidence that mixed units were used. B |
MajorB | 23 Jun 2019 7:48 a.m. PST |
There is no doubt that crossbows were used, especially in sieges. I'm not disputing that. Crossbows are much better than warbows in the confines of a castle. It should also be mentioned that when Henry V invaded France in 1415 he had 100-120 crossbowmen with him. Yes, but I'm talking about the WOTR not the HYW. I would not field more than 5% crossbow in an English unit at this period. What period are you referring to? |
Warspite1 | 23 Jun 2019 4:47 p.m. PST |
The Hundred Years War and the so-called Wars of the Roses overlap given that the one ends (officially) in 1453 and the other allegedly started in 1455 and featured commanders and many men who had fought in both. There is also the perception that the HYW did not end in 1453, it merely cooled down with further forays into France by Edward IV and Henry VIII's siege of Boulogne in the 16th century. Practices established in one historical period often overspill into another. This is never a confirmation, merely an indication. By period I am referring to the English in the 15th century. Bear in mind that, towards the end, English longbow was in decline and any missile weapon – such as a hunting crossbow – would be pressed into service. You shoot what you have to hand. With my own army list (Bills, Bows and Bloodshed by Barry Slemmings) I allow one single large Retinue unit to field one module of either crossbow or handgun. This is one module for the entire army. Then there are the mercenaries to consider. While mercenary hand gunners and crossbow were undoubtedly used you also have to remember that England was not averse to firearms or cannon. An abbey on the Isle of Wight has the earliest gun loops (1365), the West Gate at Canterbury, Cooling Castle and Bodiam Castle have 1380/85 gunloops while the Cow Tower at Norwich may by the earliest 'guns only' defence in Britain. See: link Guns are listed among the weapons that Lord Moleyns used to attack the Paston manor of Gresham 1449/50 while two burst handguns were recovered by metal detectors at Towton (1461). Finally, and to return to topic, Lord Dacre was killed at Towton allegedly by a crossbow fired from a tree. To sum up, some crossbows were present in the WOTR but not in decisive numbers. B |
dapeters | 24 Jun 2019 8:20 a.m. PST |
Then there the whole thing about "archers" may have include crossbows. But for gaming purpose I don't think you would have separate units of CBs. |
MajorB | 24 Jun 2019 11:34 a.m. PST |
The Hundred Years War and the so-called Wars of the Roses overlap given that the one ends (officially) in 1453 and the other allegedly started in 1455 and featured commanders and many men who had fought in both. Agreed, but that doesn't provide any evidence for the use of crossbows in the battles of the WOTR. By period I am referring to the English in the 15th century. … I allow one single large Retinue unit to field one module of either crossbow or handgun. This is one module for the entire army. What you allow and not allow in your rules is entirely your choice. However, I am interested to know on what basis you make that judgement? Then there are the mercenaries to consider. While mercenary hand gunners and crossbow were undoubtedly used Can you offer any evidence for the use of combined weapons of handgunnes and crossbows in a mercenary unit in the WOTR? you also have to remember that England was not averse to firearms or cannon. The use of artillery in the WOTR is undisputed but is not the subject of this thread. Finally, and to return to topic, Lord Dacre was killed at Towton allegedly by a crossbow fired from a tree. Aha! What primary source gives us that information? To sum up, some crossbows were present in the WOTR but not in decisive numbers. That crossbows were available in the WOTR is also not in dispute. However, I have yet to discover any evidence for their use in the field. |
Mithmee | 24 Jun 2019 1:16 p.m. PST |
As I stated before there is very little information from that period. But we do know that crossbows were around at the time and since most men-at-arms wore some sort of armor chest plate, individuals would have use the best weapon and that would be a crossbow. |
MajorB | 24 Jun 2019 1:22 p.m. PST |
But we do know that crossbows were around at the time and since most men-at-arms wore some sort of armor chest plate, individuals would have use the best weapon and that would be a crossbow. But if that were true there would be many descriptions of the "bowmen of England" being armed with the crossbow rather than the warbow!! |
MajorB | 24 Jun 2019 1:23 p.m. PST |
most men-at-arms wore some sort of armor chest plate, In the mid to late 15th century most men-at-arms wore full harness. |
Warspite1 | 24 Jun 2019 3:20 p.m. PST |
@MajorB I have been a Wars of the Roses historian for more than 45 years. The 'evidence' I have given you is pretty much all there is. Take it or leave it. There are no ORBATS, very little was written contemporaneously and only a little more comes from the early 16th century. Most historians in the UK will look to the next nearest period for indications when there is a dearth of information in the actual area they seek. The best 'evidence' for one weapon – at Towton – is the oft repeated story about Lord Dacre. As for combined weapons it is well documented among the Burgundians and the Swiss. Indeed the company banner for a Burgundian hand gunner unit was a flag with a crossbow on it. B |
MajorB | 25 Jun 2019 2:39 p.m. PST |
The best 'evidence' for one weapon at Towton is the oft repeated story about Lord Dacre. Yes, it seems it is oft repeated. Are you aware of where it is referenced in primary sources? As for combined weapons it is well documented among the Burgundians and the Swiss Please can you say where it is documented? Indeed the company banner for a Burgundian hand gunner unit was a flag with a crossbow on it. Of course such a banner may just mean that the unit started out as armed with crossbows but then replaced them with handguns? |
Mithmee | 25 Jun 2019 7:19 p.m. PST |
Due to England having a very long history with the Longbow the use of crossbows would have been rare. But given the size and number of battles they were probably a few individuals who had them. Due to the length of time to reload at best only a few shots could be gotten off before battle became a melee. Then it was the billhook and other polearms along with maces and swords. It just sucks that most information about what happen back then was destroyed (most likely by the Tudors). |
Puster | 25 Jun 2019 11:42 p.m. PST |
Possibly some of Martin Schwartz's 2000+ German & Swiss mercenaries Unlikely. The crossbow was not a weapon for the Landsknechts, not even the early units that developed from 1482 under Maximilian in Burgundy (his step-mother in law was a York). When they developed a component of shot, each Fδhnlein got 50 arquebus. |
Lewisgunner | 26 Jun 2019 8:17 a.m. PST |
I recall a friend , some years back, explaining that crossbows and bolts were definitely ordered and stored at port towns. He surmised that they were for arming sailors when merchant ships were converted to warship status and that the sailors were not trained from youth with lingbows and so would have found the crossbows easier to adopt . As ships were simply hired, by the crown, to move from merchant to warship use it made a lot of sense. |
Lewisgunner | 26 Jun 2019 8:21 a.m. PST |
Again I have heard doubt cast on Martin Schwartz' Swiss and Landsknechts as these might just have been any old sweep of Low Countries ex mercenaries. Schwartz.may have contracted for the best types, but woukd he geet them? If we accepted the hybrid nature of his contingent then so crodssbows might indeed be part of the mix. |
Puster | 26 Jun 2019 9:13 a.m. PST |
Maximilian was at that time duke of Burgundy (if only as stand in for his son until he became of age) and not counting on the loyality of the cities and burghers of Flanders created his own infantry with men from the Empire (which at that time nominally still included the Swiss) these units were trained by the veterans, many of them Swiss, but at that time the distinction that became so important later on was, if not irrelevant, then not really important. In 1486 Maximilian was busy in the Empire (becoming elected king) and had less use for his army, so 1487 we see the first appearance of "Landsknechts" at Stoke fields and in Italy (Calliano). I am not quite sure how Schwartz exactly came to England, but there are hints that he was hired by Margarete of York the widow of Charles the Bold and mother of the deceased Mary, wife of Maximilian. She had access to these men, most likely the permission of Maximilian and probably the money to send them to England at a time were Maximilian had no use for them – and as he was typically close to broke for most of his life a chance to earn money elsewhere would be welcome to both him and the soldiers. That said, I have seen no such "doubts" that Schwartz host was anything but made up from companies of the army that Maximilian had created in the five years before in Burgund (indeed the "low countries", but nonetheless made up of men loyal to Maximilian, ie. from the Empire, Swiss and German). I would welcome any new source or opinion on that issue, however. As I said I have not found a source that explicitely explains how Schwartz and his men came into Yorks service. |
dapeters | 26 Jun 2019 9:14 a.m. PST |
@Major B the question is what qualified as a full harness. |
Charlie | 26 Jun 2019 11:55 a.m. PST |
@Puster – just to nitpick, Mary (wife of Maximilian) was not the daughter of Margaret of York, but step-daughter. She was the daughter of Charles the Bold and his second wife, Isabella of Bourbon. |
Warspite1 | 26 Jun 2019 1:16 p.m. PST |
@ MajorB Dacre, Towton, crossbow, 1st ref is 1585… See page 6 link B |
MajorB | 26 Jun 2019 1:19 p.m. PST |
@Major B the question is what qualified as a full harness. link |
Mithmee | 26 Jun 2019 1:21 p.m. PST |
She still was the sister of both Edward & Richard and did Francis Lowell and Pole in what would be the last battle of the War of the Roses. I think that we can agree that they were used but not in large numbers since you can still fire a Bow far faster than a Crossbow. Plus there use would have been limited to only a few shots at best before the Battle turn into a general melee. |
MajorB | 26 Jun 2019 1:25 p.m. PST |
Dacre, Towton, crossbow, 1st ref is 1585… See page 6 Yes, on page 6 of that novel, it says "The legend first appears in print in 1585". But that is all it says. No citation, no reference, nothing. So where or what is this document from 1585 that the author refers to? |
MajorB | 26 Jun 2019 1:29 p.m. PST |
I think that we can agree that they were used but not in large numbers I am still looking for evidence for their use on the battlefield attested in a primary source. The nearest we have come so far is the nebulous reference to some document from 1585. Over 100 years after the event in question but still (just about) primary source material. |
MajorB | 26 Jun 2019 1:41 p.m. PST |
Maximilian was at that time duke of Burgundy (if only as stand in for his son until he became of age) Dukes of Burgundy: Philip III the Good (1419 – 1467) Charles I the Bold (1467 – 1477) Mary the Rich (1477 – 1482) Maximilian's only claim to the title was by his marriage to Mary in 1477 and is generally not considered to be a Duke. |
Warspite1 | 26 Jun 2019 3:29 p.m. PST |
@MajorB I have no idea! As I have explained – already – this is a poorly recorded period. All we have to go on are vague references or else looking at developments in earlier/later periods or elsewhere in Europe. Even references to longbow in the WOTR are rare and references to bills and other weapons even rarer. There are no ORBATS and only one detailed indenture, that of Walter Strickland in Westmoreland circa 1452, and even that is a promise to provide troops and not a list of what really DID turn up. Given your tone I now regret ever getting involved in this thread. Barry |
dapeters | 27 Jun 2019 9:45 a.m. PST |
"So it would have been typical to see a knight wearing a brigandine in place of a breastplate, an incomplete harness with elements of the arm or leg armour missing (or both) and larger elements of the steel plate armour substituted by maile." While I agree with almost everything this groups said, except perhaps, they might have used "men-at-arms" or "gentlemen instead" of "knights" I did not see any sources mentioned? And this would be particularly important for English Aromors. |
MajorB | 27 Jun 2019 11:23 a.m. PST |
Given my tone? If you look back through my responses to your comments in this thread you will find that all I have done is either ask follow up questions or challenge a statement that appears to be unsubstantiated. You say that the WOTR is a "poorly recorded period". How then is it that there are at least a dozen primary sources describing the Battle of Edgcote in 1469 – one of the less well known battles of the WOTR? You have mentioned ORBATS a couple of times. I was not asking for ORBATS, I was simply asking for any primary source reference that mentioned the use of crossbows on the battlefield. The nearest we have come is the alleged crossbow bolt that killed Lord Dacre at Towton, but that is in a document of 1585 that no one can identify. I am surpised though that as a historian you did not follow up that reference and try to find the 1585 text. As a historian with some years of experience, I am sure you will agree though that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because we can find no primary source that attests the use of crossbows on the battlefield does not mean it didn't happen. So the only response to my original question sadly seems to be "We don't know". Thank you for your help in reaching this conclusion. |
Mithmee | 27 Jun 2019 5:47 p.m. PST |
That just it you are not going to find any primary source reference from that period. How then is it that there are at least a dozen primary sources describing the Battle of Edgcote in 1469 There is a big difference between describing a battle and giving a detail order of battle. Sorry to say that the individuals back then did not consider that there would be miniature wargamers over 500 years in future needing to know whether and how many of certain types of weapons where used during the battles. All we know is that the crossbow existed back then along with very early handguns and cannons and all of them probably saw some use during the battles. |
Puster | 28 Jun 2019 3:13 a.m. PST |
Dukes of Burgundy: Philip III the Good (1419 1467) Charles I the Bold (1467 1477) Mary the Rich (1477 1482)Maximilian's only claim to the title was by his marriage to Mary in 1477 and is generally not considered to be a Duke. From 1477 to 82 he was indeed duke of Burgundy, if by marriage. Nobody (well, perhaps except the French King) considered him the "duke consort". With Marys death the official title went to Philipp, his son (age 3 then) for whom he was ruler of Burgundy, and he was still usually called "duke" in contemporary sources until Phillips coming of age. So, formally, he was not a duke, but to all formal effects, he was the ruler of Burgundy. That said, important to this debate hre is that he alone lacked the backing that Mary had many feard he would sell out their respective region or city to the Empires need which was one of the reasons that he created an infantry from German rather then local soldiers. Chances are that without the death of Mary Landsknechts as we know them would not exist. @Charlie you are correct, of course, that Margarethe was not Marys mother but rather step-mother. In my first posting I even still called her Maximilians "step-mather in law", I just glossed over it in the second posting :-)
|
Warspite1 | 28 Jun 2019 7:41 a.m. PST |
@MajorB If you check your replies (above) you will see that you 'shoot the messenger' far too often. This is the last reply which you will receive from myself on ANY subject. Good day. B |
MajorB | 28 Jun 2019 11:45 a.m. PST |
If you check your replies (above) you will see that you 'shoot the messenger' far too often It's very sad that you consider asking for further detail to be "shooting the messenger". A good historian should be able to back up his comments with suitable references. Ah well, so much for shared historical research. |
Charlie | 28 Jun 2019 1:08 p.m. PST |
|
Puster | 28 Jun 2019 11:59 p.m. PST |
Its always said when somebody feels personally attacked by a mere internet debate. More often then not its just an unhappy wording that is not received as intended. Internet communication is a beast. I am sure no insult was intended by any posting here. Be calm, and read more history :-) |
chrisminiaturefigs | 03 Jul 2019 11:37 a.m. PST |
Warspite 1 you should not cross swords with MajorB, I had a very long and painful banter in a post I started regarding the Battle of Towton casualties a few years back, perhaps MajorB remembers! Anyway as for crossbows in the wars of roses, no doubt crossbows existed in England at that time, but as MajorB insists, there is no proof they were used on the battlefield, but that does not mean they never were used on the battlefield. On that basis if someone wanted to field a few in there wars of roses armies I don't think anyone could be to offended! |
Mithmee | 03 Jul 2019 12:38 p.m. PST |
Crossbows are not Nukes, if someone had one and took part in a WOTR battle they would have used it. But most English preferred to use the bow due to it being able to shoot faster. |
Uesugi Kenshin | 05 Jul 2019 10:46 a.m. PST |
It's like watching a car crash. |
Sundance | 07 Aug 2019 7:39 p.m. PST |
Don't forget, though, that a lack of historical evidence does not mean they weren't used. Only that there is no evidence of their use. Simultaneously, that cannot be taken to mean that they were used, either. |
dapeters | 08 Aug 2019 8:24 a.m. PST |
There a passage in one of Delbruk, Verbruggen, DeVries, or Contamine book in which a Swiss noble women is talking about how her Husband and the other knights destroyed the Burgundian army. No mention of the cantons, pikes or halberds. IIRC there were 50 Gentlemen from Bern on the campaign. |