Help support TMP


"Mounted longbowmen during the WOTR?" Topic


24 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the War of the Roses Message Board


Action Log

13 Nov 2019 6:17 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Changed title from "Mounted longbowmen during the WOTR ?" to "Mounted longbowmen during the WOTR?"Removed from Medieval Discussion board

Areas of Interest

Renaissance

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Battle-Market: Tannenberg 1410

The Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.


Featured Profile Article

The Gates of Old Jerusalem

The gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.


740 hits since 13 Nov 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2019 3:42 a.m. PST

Hello All,

We never talk about mounted longbowmen during the WOTR … There no longer existed ???

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2019 4:12 a.m. PST

Archers dismounted before the battle started. They're a transport system, not a troop type.

Eumelus Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2019 4:21 a.m. PST

A fact not always appreciated is that the entirety of Henry V's army at Agincourt rode to the battlefield – there were probably more horses than men in Henry's force. But as Robert observes, longbowmen (always) and men-at-arms (usually) dismounted to give battle.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2019 7:13 a.m. PST

@robert piepenbrink :

I know it but they certainly did not have the same status!

@Eumelus /

I know it, that's not what I mean, in the HYW he has a lot of of mounted archers and none in the WOTR ?

Eumelus Supporting Member of TMP16 Nov 2019 10:14 a.m. PST

No, my point was that both in the HYW and in the WotR longbowmen rode to battle on campaign if they could acquire or be given a horse – who wouldn't rather ride than walk? And the armies weren't large enough that local forage in the campaign season would run short, at least if the army kept moving.

But true mounted archers (riding into battle and shooting from horseback) of any type were never part of any Western medieval army, AFAIK, unless they were Eastern mercenaries.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP16 Nov 2019 10:38 a.m. PST

They were called mounted archers even though they were still firing and fighting on foot, but they were easy to recognize because of their long boots, this type of archers in general of better quality are non-existent during the WOTR.

dapeters20 Nov 2019 10:47 a.m. PST

No I would not say that

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP20 Nov 2019 11:51 p.m. PST

Quote me the presence of mounted longbowmen in the WOTR?

And if we must give horses to longbowmen, they will be for the best, it's logical.

dapeters22 Nov 2019 11:28 a.m. PST

You don't think that man such as Warwick had such archers in his retinues?

MajorB22 Nov 2019 12:16 p.m. PST

Soldiers in the WOTR would ride on the march if they had horses. But they nearly all dismounted to fight, albeit with a very few exceptions e.g. the 200 spearmen at Tewkesbury.

dapeters22 Nov 2019 1:18 p.m. PST

I read a paper today that suggested that all western European "Cavalry" was in fact mounted infantry.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP23 Nov 2019 12:23 p.m. PST

@ dapeters:

Yes, I think they existed but never mentioned in the WOTR unlike the HYW where we talk a lot about them.

@ MajorB: I know they were riding and fighting on foot, but during the WOTR I think the% of infantry without horses was gigantic, unlike some of the HYW armies;

What manufaccture offers beautiful mounted longbowmen in livery coats (and their big boots that automatically distinguish them from archers without horses) with their idoine dismounted figures? The Burgundians of ESSEX?

MajorB23 Nov 2019 3:00 p.m. PST

but during the WOTR I think the% of infantry without horses was gigantic, unlike some of the HYW armies;

Why do you think that?

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP24 Nov 2019 4:53 a.m. PST

Because during the HYW there were the famous"chevauchées".

MajorB25 Nov 2019 12:38 p.m. PST

Because during the HYW there were the famous "chevauchées".

The "chevauchées" were mounted raids. But just because they ahd a lot of horses in the HTW doesn't mean that they didn't have a lot of horses in the WOTR.

In fact it actually argues the opposite…

Warspite126 Nov 2019 5:03 a.m. PST

The 1452 Walter Strickland indenture with the Earl of Salisbury is for retinue-grade troops and shows 50/50 longbow and bill.

bowmen horsed and harnessed – 69
billmen horsed and harnessed – 74
bowmen without horses – 71
billmen without horses 76

'Harnessed' is interpreted as some sort of armour, probably jacks and sallets.

This gives us roughly 25% MOUNTED longbow coming from Westmoreland with Strickland. But, if this was a fast-moving campaign, would the 'without horses' troops be mustered at all? Or sent?

Either the foot and mounted would have to be separated into two units or the mounted would have to move at foot speeds to keep the whole unit together which negates their speed value.
My guess is that they would separate and the mounted would go ahead with the hope that the foot troops would catch-up.
Westmoreland is a northern area and was less aflluent in the Middle Ages. One might assume that southern areas had a higher percentage of horses or richer lords may have provided horses for their men.

Recorded speeds of armies in this period suggest that they moved at walking pace or waggon/cart speed. On the other hand fast raids or advance guards were (probably) all-mounted.

Barry

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP26 Nov 2019 6:52 a.m. PST

@ MajorB:

Well, if they had a lot of them during the WOTR, why do not we ever talk about mounted longbowmen in the books on this war, like those on the HYW?

@ Warspite1 :

Do not forget that a monted longbowmen costs more in salary than a guy on foot …

This could play …

Warspite126 Nov 2019 9:43 a.m. PST

@Paskal

You are assuming that they were paid. If raised under an indenture to a local lord then there is no obligation for pay. The obligation here is military service in return for 'good lordship'. The only money they might get is looting the dead or taking money from prisoners.

See:

link

and

link

If serving in a national army then that is a different matter. National English troops were normally paid.

Barry

MajorB26 Nov 2019 12:21 p.m. PST

Well, if they had a lot of them during the WOTR, why do not we ever talk about mounted longbowmen in the books on this war, like those on the HYW?

Because they only rode on the march. They fought on foot. So there's no need to mention the horses.

Again, you're not thinking like a 15th/16th century chronicler. To them it was irrelevant whether archers rode on the march or moved on foot. They were only concerned with the archers' actions in battle. Hence no mention of horses. Come to that there's precious little mention of horses at all in the primary sources for the WOTR – not even for MAA.

Warspite126 Nov 2019 1:37 p.m. PST

@Major B.

Agreed.

The Wars of the Roses is very badly recorded.
As a historian AND a wargamer it frustrates me that there is so much that we do not know. The archaeology at Towton and at Bosworth has thrown a new light on the period but there is so much more we need and archaeology cannot give us all the answers.

Paskal is asking many questions, sadly there are too few answers.

Barry

dapeters26 Nov 2019 1:41 p.m. PST

"Either the foot and mounted would have to be separated into two units or the mounted would have to move at foot speeds to keep the whole unit together which negates their speed value…..Recorded speeds of armies in this period suggest that they moved at walking pace or waggon/cart speed."

Exactly also Poleweapons and longbows are not very good from horse back.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP27 Nov 2019 4:13 a.m. PST

@ Warspite1:

Paid is not forced into currency.Paskal asks a lot of questions, it is not the only one to ask you all for your opinions. Let's go on.

@ MajorB:

Let's say he had less than during the HYW because it's not the same kind of strategy.

@dapeters:

Strategy question.

Warspite127 Nov 2019 4:26 a.m. PST

@Paskal:
Your reply is not understood.

The vast majority of surviving English retinue indentures, with local lords, make no mention of payment.

Bastard feudalism (livery and maintenance) was a system of service for good lordship. The obligation was military service to the local lord in return for that lord's care and protection 'good lordship'.

See the second link which I sent you (see previous above).

Barry

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP27 Nov 2019 10:20 a.m. PST

@ Warspite1:

I wrote "Paid is not forced into currency" I meant "they did not have to pay them in hard cash!".

Any advantage obtained for having served in a retinue is already a form of payment.The concept of service in exchange for good favour in the form of offices, grants, etc.(Bastard feudalism)that are a form of payment …

But By offering money instead of land, lords could afford to retain more followers(Bastard feudalism).

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.