"What types of troops were the mainlanders ?" Topic

Good morning all,

What types of troops were the mainlanders who made up the bulk of the victors at Bosworth ?

Horsemen of all types, archers, crossbowmen, handgunners, halberdiers, pikemen, artillerymen, other?

The simple mainlanders infantrymen wore livery coats?
And if yes of which lords?

Have they never been described in a book?

Thank you

A typical WOTR army would consist of ~10% Men-at-arms in full harness (armour), ~45% archers, ~45% billmen. All troops typically fought on foot, though some might move to the battlefield on horseback.

The simple mainlanders infantrymen wore livery coats?

If they were part of a lord's retinue then probably yes.

And if yes of which lords?

The lords who were present at the battle.

By "mainlanders" do you mean the French?

By "mainlanders" do you mean the French?

The French were probably pikemen.

They probably weren't.

I did some work on them that resulted in an article in Slingshot 329 (March 2020). Michael Jones' theory was that they were pikemen, veterans of the disbanded Pont de l'Arche camp. What evidence there is suggests that some were archers, and those who were close-combat troops are as likely, if not more likely, to have been halberdiers as pikemen. So not all that different from the English bowmen and billmen, except that they wore brigandines rather than the commoner English jack.

They probably weren't.

Phil Steele says that " Molinet tells us that Henry's mercenaries … densely formed pikemen, mostly … deployed at the other end of the field to avoid the King's guns."

link

Paskal, no one is trying to deceive you. But keep in mind that the Wars of the Roses are VERY poorly documented. We seldom have numbers. We never have armies broken down by troop type. Our sources appear to contradict each other. There are very few eye-witness accounts, and some of them may not have spoken enough English to have a good idea what was going on. There are miserable skirmishes in the AWI better documented than the biggest WOTR battles. (You'll notice we misplaced Bosworth for centuries.) All honor to those like GurKhan trying to clear away the mist, but they're attempting to build computers with flint knives and bearskins.

What you see on the tabletops for WOTR battles is a sort of best guess consensus. It's fun. It's colorful. But if you ask the same questions in five or ten years and get different answers, don't be too surprised.

@robert piepenbrink:
Thank you for getting involved.
All of this HAS been explained to this gentleman before. I spent many many hours researching and drafting polite replies to all his questions in late 2019 and early 2020. However he keeps asking the same or similar questions over and over again as if hoping for different answers, and then he argues with any answers which he does receive from myself or from other well meaning people such as yourself.

As a direct result of that earlier conduct this thread…

TMP link

and others were set up to accumulate on TMP what little knowledge there is.

As you rightly say Robert this is a very poorly documented period and we – as historians or wargamers – often have to work from second-hand sources or by making comparisons with other armies or time periods.

As an example:
English longbow in Burgundian armies 1476/77 are clearly illustrated in mixed units with pikemen or billmen while the written account of Stoke 1487 suggests that each longbowman had a billman at his back. Based on that (and the 1452 Walter Strickland indenture of mixed troops in the link above) it is logical to assume that most English units WERE mixed.

Matters took a darker turn this week when a man of the very similar name contacted me directly via the secretary of the Lance and Longbow Society. It was only some time after contact started (I was dumb and had just woken up) that I worked out it is the same person. He has since admitted his identity in a personal email. Why he went via the L&LBS is a matter of mystery to me as my last discussion with him, on TMP in early 2020, was to tell him I would no longer deal with him.
I regard going through the L&LBS asking questions about me as slightly sinister. I now note – tonight 31 October 2020 – that he has updated all his earlier threads with comments about 'the specialist on the WOTR' and at least one where he has named me directly. I assume this is because I have ceased to answer his direct emails.

This is not correct forum conduct and I will be raising the matter with the editor right after this.

I would like to thank the secretary of the L&LBS and would wish to point out that he acted in all good faith.

Barry

You're welcome, Warspite. Yes, I thought there was a familiar feel to it. Easy for a child of the computer age to think everything is out there, and all you have to do is keep adjusting the search terms. You have to do research sometimes to appreciate how little is known.

Phil Steele says that " Molinet tells us that Henry's mercenaries … densely formed pikemen, mostly … deployed at the other end of the field to avoid the King's guns."

Molinet says that "the French" (by which I think he means Henry's whole army, not the French proper, but that's by the by) moved against one end of Richard's army to avoid the guns, yes. He doesn't say that they were pikemen, nor even "densely formed".

"Le roy fit tirer les engiens de son armée contre le comte de Richemont; et adoncq les François, cognoissans par le traict du roy la situation du lieu et les manières de la bataile, eurent advis, pour éviter ledit traict, d'eux assembler de costé à la bataille dudict roy, et non pas de front."

He doesn't say that they were pikemen, nor even "densely formed".

I suggest you take that point up with Phil Steele.
link

So for the French they would have been Halberdiers / archers or maybe instead of archers, crossbowmen and / or handgunners, right?

Because the archers in the French army were either archers mounted in the ordinance companies or were militiamen of the Franc-archers, so in my humble opinion not the type of troops given to Tudor by the king of France.

Now crossbowmen and handgunners would not have made the weight in front of the archers of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk and Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey because of their low rates of fire …

But if the French are also archers, I really don't see what types?

For the livery coats, for the mass of Bretons,French and the thousands of Scots it's weird, I don't imagine them in livery coats …

Now if they were pikemen and halberdiers organized in the Swiss fashion, they did not really need livery costs, would have recognized them just by their weaponry.

Note that for the same period as the WOTR we find good battle orders as here: TMP link But it is true that it was for a battle on the continent …