"Changes in the tactics of men-at-arms in Valois Burgundy" Topic

This subject actually seems to cover a wider phenomenon for the men-at-arms employed by the armies of the XIV/XV/XVI centuries. But I'm relegating it to Valois Burgundy because it is the subject I'm most familiar with. Below is a summary of what I could gather up so far on the topic.

The English military doctrine of dismounting their men-at-arms during the Hundred Years War is a well acknowledged subject. That these troops could mount later in the same engagements where they operated dismounted or act as cavalry in advantageous situations does not exclude the fact that English men-at-arms seem to have favoured dismounting in many situations.

As the English achieved ressounding success in the first phases of the war, the French military aristocracy adopted a similar doctrine, with mixed success. This practice didn't spread equally as well through all the domains of lords theoretically subject to the king of France, although some of the military aristocracy remained seemingly more conservative in their tactics, like the one of Brabant.

The armies fielded by the Valois dukes of Burdungy were also influenced by this English custom. However, during the reign of Philip the Bold the men-at-arms could still act as proper cavalry, as show when the forces employed by Charles VI and Philip the Bold fought the Flemish at the Battle of Westrozebeke in 1382.

Following on with the armies employed by John the Fearless we see a strong tendency towards dismounting the bulk of the men-at-arms while still employing a few as a mounted reserve. That is particularly evident by reading John the Fearless' plan of battle at Versailles, in 1417. The duke's description of his tactics at Othée, in 1408, show how such military maxims could be applied in pratice. Personally, I theorise these tactics might have been reinforced by the duke after witnessing the disastrous cavalry charge at Nicopolis in 1396.

All these military changes go hand in hand with the notion of infantry in general going through a certain ascendency during the Late Middle Ages. Not only the "obligate" infantry importance rises, but the military aristocracy often choses to act as footmen rather than horsemen because such a course of action is more advantegeous in most direct confrontations.

However, the military activity during the reigns of both next Valois dukes of Burgundy, Philip the Good and Charles the Bold, show the aristocracy going back to acting mostly as mounted forces. This is seems to be the case at Mons-en Vimeu, in 1421. Such a change doesn't seem by the 1420's, as the English battle plan of Cravant, fought in 1423, clearly orders the men-at-arms to dismount, on pain of death. Although one could still argue that the actual need to apply such a severe punishment for recalcitrant men-at-arms shows that among such a military group there was still a tendency to act as mounted troops, at least among the Burgundians.

During the next few engagements I know of during Philip the Good's reign the men-at-arms also seem to have favoured engaging their enemies mounted. They did at Brouwershaven in 1426, and much later still kept this custom during the Ghent War, as show during Rupelmonde/Bazel in 1452 and Gavre/Gavere in 1453. At least in Rupelmonde Philip's force employed the stratagem of luring their enemies to a mounted ambush, but it seems that in Brouwershaven and Gavre the men-at-arms simply made frontal charges against their enemies, although these were supported and/or preceded by artillery bombardment.

The tendency towards men-at-arms acting mostly as cavalry again seems to me complete under Charles the Bold. Notoriously the Burgundian men-at-arms, but also the mercenary cavalry Charles hired from Italy, served mostly as cavalrymen. They never seem to have dismounted during the famous last battles against the Lower Union, during Burgundian-Swiss wars. Even during the debut of Charles' military activities they still acted mounted: when facing the Liégeois which were protected at a fairly strong position at Montenaeken they didnt dismount, nor did they at Brustem, where they relied on the Burgundian archers to carve their way through entrenched enemy infantry rather than just dismounting to attack a strong position.

This also seems evident by Charles' description of the engagement against Frederick III's Imperial army at Neuss, where his men-at-arms attacked troops exiting from a laager mounted. Jean de Haynin also describes that, of the troops that tried to take Huy, only the archers and the rest of the infantry tried storming it, while the men-at-arms and the coutillers kept acting as a sort of mounted reserve.

The thing is that I do not understand exactly why such a change of military tactics took place. The development of dismounting tactics seem to be well covered in academic papers, but I have never seem the subject of why men-at-arms decided to go back to acting mostly mounted took place. Has anyone thought about this?

I think the mystery isn't why they got back on, but rather why they got off in the first place. The knightly class rode horses for centuries, and saw it as a symbol of status and privilege. They were inclined to ride into battle, and generally only adopted foot tactics against really effective massed shooters like longbowmen or arquebusiers.

The 100YW English weren't facing massed bowmen, but somehow came to recognize that they were more effective operating with their own longbowmen on foot. The genesis of that innovation is a bit of a mystery to me.

- Ix

If men at arms got back on their horses to act as cavalry, what did they do with their pole arms?

YA – I believe the principal reason for the English practice of dismounting their MAA during the HYW was that the armies raised for the Crown through indentures typically consisted mostly of commoners with a very high proportion of archers. The morale effect on the rank-and-file of dismounting the relatively small number of nobles and having them fight in the front ranks outweighed the purely military effectiveness of keeping them mounted.

This technique would be suited for a defensive battle fought primarily by archers. For a Continental army planning to attack, especially if it contained a larger proportion of MAA, keeping the gensdarmes mounted probably made more sense. Also, if an army's close-order foot were non-natives such as Swiss, they probably wouldn't be inspired by or even tolerant of foreign nobles shouldering their way into the front ranks.

PaulB – I presume the same pair of grooms that brought forward the lord's destrier and lance would take his pollaxe back to the tent. The whole process, from the ward commander sending a page or herald back to the rear to fetch the horses all the way to gathering the newly-remounted horsemen into pursuit groups, probably would have taken at least a quarter of an hour if not more.

Why did MAA fight dismounted? Courtrai and Bannockburn. There you go. English MAA fought dismounted before the indenture system came into it's own such as at Boroughbridge where they fought on foot 'in the Scottish fashion' as a chronicler tells us.

I would surmise the Flemish MAA at Courtrai fought dismounted for much the same reason as the English in the HYW – the mass of the army were (co-nationalist) commoner foot and there was much more value to inspiring this mass by personal example on foot than there would have been in trying to match the (much more numerous) French gentility on horseback.

I was not aware of any reconstruction that has the English MAA fighting predominantly on foot at Bannockburn, but if they did perhaps it was due to the unsuitability of the ground. Knights were of course not "cavalry" in the modern sense, but warriors who were perfectly prepared to fight on foot whenever necessary (e.g in sieges, or when the horses had perished in the Holy Lands, etc).

Quality of horses available to an expeditionary army might be a factor.

Regarding 15th century, there is always the technological development of horse armour to conside: as the century progressed, plate barding covering the vulnerable parts of the horse became available to those who could afford it.

This made the horses lot less vulnerable to arrows, crossbow bolts, pointy sticks etc. and thus made the rider lot less likely to become unhorsed due to te horse becoming a casualty.

I suspect horses do not like getting pricked by arrows, and when and if they do, the become uncontrollable.

Therefore, early in a battle, or, if not kept well to the rear, the men would dismount from them, and have them held at the rear of armies.

Presumably, later in the battle, after most, if not all the arrows are spent, MMA and other horse-mounted men could remount their steeds, and/or move about without much fear of volleys of arrows being fired at them.

Thanks for the replies.

Eumelus, I believe uglyfatbloke meant to say that Courtrai and Bannockburn provided the reasons of why men-at-arms started dismounting, as those battles showed the limitations of shock cavalry. Boroughbridge was the proper example of men-at-arms starting to dismount. At least that's how I interpreted it.

About the subject above. I can see that being the case in England with the wars against the Scots leading the English men-at-arms to start dismounting, but not for Courtrai, unless you meant to say Courtrai influenced the English. The reason why is because I'm not aware of the French men-at-arms dismounting in the next battles against the Flemings. This was not due to them not learning their lesson after Courtrai, they did, but their response was different. The next year after Courtrai, at Arques they still fought mounted, but tried to lure the footmen of the main Flemish battle out of their formation, so that they could scatter them. Were they successful the battle would probably have gone their way, but since the Flemish footmen kept their order both forces were kept in a stand-off until the French decided to retreat, neither party being able to ensure a decisive victory.

French men-at-arms really seem to start dismounting after Crecy. T. F. Tout has a good article on that titled "Some Neglected Fights between Crecy and Poitiers".

Griefbringer, barding might have to do with it. My problem is, however, that much of men-at-arms depicted in iconography during the XIV/XVth centuries are riding mounts without barding. Even when they are, often the barding leaves some areas, such as the neck, completely exposed. The men-at-arms of Charles the Bold's ordinnances, for instance, were supposed to serve with at least shaffrons, but knowing how troops had difficulties turning out with required equipment, some of them might have served with completely unprotected mounts. I have difficulties believing the mounted men-at-arms that fought at Brouwershaven, a battle were we know they were directly subject to hails of arrows, didnt have their mounts struck by arrows in any vulnerable region. Unfortunately the sources I've read from bibliography only mention the rather innefective effects of the arrows against the protection of the men-at-arms.

About the iconography, Master WA depiction of Charles the Bold's cavalry doesnt seem to show shaffrons for me:

In Diebold Schilling the Elder's depiction the mounts are very well armoured, but the neck is still exposed:

Even then, I guess there was much difference between the household guard cavalry and the ordinnance gens d'armes. My hypothesis is that Diebold's might have looked more like the guards, while Master WA's would be the average man-at-arms of the ordinnance companies.

About the shift from dismounting to mounting. My guess is that it has something to do with the victories on the period. That troops learned from victories is evident to me from a quote by de Commynes of the men-at-arms in Fornovo saying something like "remember Guinegate!". Maybe the successful action of cavalry in Verneuil and the victories at Patay, Formigny and Castillon influenced men-at-arms in France to act mostly as cavalry again?

In north Europe there were higher ratios of Nobles and Knights to men at arms, these men had little desire to see their expense horse messed up by missiles, so they tended to end up on foot. In Italy the renaissance was up and running, Italian nobles seemly had a better "things to do" and refrained for involvement in combat. As a result, Italian men at arms and had almost no nobles in their ranks. Being insecure in their social station they did not want to be confused with the other lower classes of combatants. At the same time and perhaps because of this Italian/ Milanese armor tends to be heaver then the German/Gothic armor, the Italian armor basic seeks to stop the blow. German/Gothic armor tries to move the force of the blow away from the body, hence all the fluting. Again this was because the Northern Europeans tended to dismount before the battle. Charles the Bold favored Italian men at arms, as he thought them to be the best. This is based on a lot of different readings but a good Start is Bert Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology)

For me I think No 1 Armour

The Italian armourers perfected better heavier armour in the 1420s, heavier breast and pauldrons plus plate for horses. The long bow started failing to puncture the plate.
An example is the mercenary Italians used at Verneuil demonstrated that heavy cavalry could come into contact with the archers and cut them down(although they decided to raid the baggage rather than return to finish off the English army)

When I get time I can give you some more examples

Dapeters, I thank you for your recommendation. Hopefully I will get to read it eventually. Much of what you said makes sense for me, except the widespread practice of dismounting for Northern Europeans. The problem is that this tactic seems to be very prevalent in English and then, later, French armies (those two did not seem to have adopted german fluted armour en masse, at least no more than italian armour, but the the armour styles not being that different or influent in the time period dismounted tactics were adopted might render this as a moot point) during the Hundred Years War. Though, like I tried to describe, this custom seems to decline for the French before the end of the Hundred Years War. The English would still keep with it during the War of the Roses, but for whatever reason apparently dropped it in the XVI century (e.g. Guinegate in 1513 and Pinkie Cleugh in 1547). But for the custom in the lands of the Holy Roman Empire the only instances of dismounting I do remember were adopted in response to an enemy which had achieved superiority against men-at-arms acting as shock cavalry before (Sempach in 1386 and Horschitz in 1423), following this rationale the men-at-arms in the Italan Peninsula should be just as keen on dismounting because of Arbedo (1422), which doesn't seem to be the case.

I do not claim to be expert in conflitcs throughout the rather extensive and diverse regions of the Holy Roman Empire, but those that I do recall did not usually feature dismounted men-at-arms. They did not seem to dismount very often against the Hussites, nor for the troops of the Teutonic order against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. When Frederick III tried to relieve Neuss against Charles the Bold (1476) we read about cavalry engagements against the Burgundians, while Frederick the Victorious also fought a mounted engagement at Seckenheim (1462). I just don't find a prevalency of examples featuring dismounted men-at-arms in the Holy Roman Empire. Feel free to correct me on what I missed.

French Wargame Holidays, after the 1420s there seem to have been many instances of men-at-arms charging archers frontally regardless of being subjected to enemy arrows like you said. You mentioned Verneuil, I'd add Brouwershaven, which also illustrates your point very well. The author of Le Livre des Trahisons de France envers la Maison de Bourgogne describes many cuirassess being dented, but not pierced, by arrows loosed by English longbowmen, the only notable casualty being Andrieu de Valines, who was killed because he wasn't using a helmet.

However, my doubt is about how the horses weren't affected, at least significantly, by arrows. You responded with the adoption of barding, but I have some doubts. My doubts about how the men-at-arms made contact without being disordered are threefold. First, barding doesn't appear to be ubiquitious in XVth century iconography. Second, even then barding usually still doesn't cover the mount completely, regions like the neck are often exposed (in case you reply that wouldn't be lethal, I think the argument was that longbowmen didn't need to kill horses outright, just make the animals bout or lose control because of the arrows). Third, possibly much of the barding could be cuir bouilli, which wasn't that effective resisting to energy. Unfortunately I haven't read any source describing the state of the mounts after such scenarios.

One of the reasons that titling is so popular is IMHO knight and men at arms are not seeing enough of it in battle. I sure that every leader was looking for a circumstance where a mounted charge might do the trick. This was true even in the first world war. But the majority of Battles are actually sieges. Also FWIW Italian Armour was decorated as a secondary process being etched or covered in materiel. As the Fifteenth century goes on gentlemen preferred German style armor to the point that the Italians start to make it themselves.