"French arriere-ban in the late 15th century?" Topic

Does anyone have any info on this subject? I was under the impression that the 'arriere-ban' was by the 15th century an archaic and outdated form of raising armies in France, and by the second half the century the 'compagnies d'ordonnance' were were established. But I've found some reference to it being used in the 1470s. Was it still used alongside the ordonnance companies and francs-archers?

Would be mass levy of all men that could fight, by an overlord. So it could be done, but the weapons and fighting value would be dubious.
In 1452 there was a royal listing of nobles to be called and they in turn would get their people. It seemed to have been in use in the wars of religion too.
See this
link

Seems you can find exmples of its use quite late.

By this period the arriere-ban was not a levy of every man who could fight, but a levy of the nobility. It was still occasionally called out even after the establishment of the ordonnance companies, but not often.

There used to be a few articles online about the ban in the Duchy of Brittany, but the only one I can find now is:
link

This sets out how nobles of certain grades of wealth should be equipped:

Item, that nobles holding wealth between 140 and 150 livres present themselves equipped as an archer in brigandine, if they know how to shoot; or else be equipped with good guisarmes & good sallets & leg harnesses.
…
Item, those of 500, 510 or 520 livres of income should be in the equipment of a man-at-arms, each furnished with four archers, or three archers and a guisarmier, a coustillier & a page, in good equipment.

The Breton muster of Léon in 1481 provided 44 men-at-arms; 122 shooters; and 127 voulgiers.

Contamine ("Guerre, État et Societe e la fun du moyen age: Études sur les armées des rois de France 1337-1494") has some figures from various bits of France: Dauphiné in 1473 188 men-at-arms and 195 coustilliers, 480 brigandiniers, 104 infantry. Caux and Gisors added together in 1470, 99 men-at-arms, 27 coustilliers, 108 archers, 297 voulgiers. The Dauphiné arrière-ban about 1470, "188 men-at-arms and 195 coustilliers, 480 brigandiniers". ("Brigandinier" is a mounted man in a brigandine, often but not always a mounted archer.) Contamine (1972 p.369) suggests that Charles VII was aiming at a requirement for two archers per man-at-arms for the arrière-ban, the same as for the ordonnance companies: these figures suggest in practice anything from one (Caux-Gisors) to three (Léon).

The arrière-ban of Normandy served at St-Aubin-du-Cormier in 1488 against Brittany, as did certain Breton nobles siding with the king who'd no doubt be much the same; they were also called out in 1491. This may be the last actual service in the 15th century, though I believe the arrière-ban of the nobility was called out on several occasions in the 17th century. Contamine notes though that when Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494 he entrusted home defence not to the arrière-ban but by appointing various nobles to royal household positions with accompanying military obligations.

There was a period, 1481-85, when an attempt was made to convert the arrière-ban into infantry pikemen and halberdiers instead of men-at-arms and archers, but I am not sure that it ever had much effect.

Each noble is to bring his men.

Hi,
in "Le ban et l'arrière-ban de Bretagne" 1550-1590, l'arrière ban is still a fighting force.

link

The arrière ban was last called out in 1697, but then for coastal guard duties.

The last time it was expected to fight alongside the regular army seems to have been in 1674, although it did not in the event, having thoroughly disgusted Turenne by their incompetence and querulence.

Thanks all for the replies – useful info!

So it seems like the arriere-ban in the late 15th century, when called, provided a similar military force to the ordonnance companies – mounted men-at-arms, supported with archers and other foot troops.
It's tempting to think they would have been inferior to the professional ordonnance companies, perhaps in terms of discipline and organisation, but I don't suppose we really know.

I'll explain where I've come across it – in my research on the War of the Burgundian Succession, I've found a few mentions of it being called in 1479. Most info on this war concern the Low Countries, but there was also fierce fighting to the south in the duchy and county of Burgundy itself. The french occupied both in 1477, but there was a spirited rebellion, and by the end of the year the French had been driven out of the county but not the duchy. The French commander Georges de La Tremoille was dimissed, and replaced by Charles d'Amboise. In 1478 d'Amboise restored order in the duchy. In 1479 he invaded the county in force and brutally subdued the rebels.

This passage is from 'Histoire des Ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois' (1826), and describes the preparations for d'Amboise's invasion of the county. Note that it is a rough translation of the French text using google translate! It's a surprisingly effective tool, and you can easily understand what is being talked about, though I'm of course happy to accept corrections to my translations.

"It was not on this side that the king had at this moment directed his designs and his hope. Confiding in the wisdom and know-how of M. d'Amboise, it was to him that he had sent the most aid. His army had received a lot of artillery, francs-archers and nobles from the ban and the arriere ban; moreover, he had attracted a number of Swiss. Everything was ready to try to conquer the county of Burgundy."

So the arriere-ban was called to reinforce an existing army, to make sure the planned invasion absolutely succeeded, not wanting a repeat of the embarrassment from two years ago.

Interesting.
One of my planned scenarios is the Battle of St.-Aubin-du-Cormier (1488). As Gurkhan mentioned, the arrier-ban of Normandy is called out to join the army led by Louis II de la Trémoille.

Quite a military family.

Yes, Georges de la Tremoille was the uncle of the more famous Louis II.

He led the invasion of the duchy and county of Burgundy, but made a lot of enemies due to his greed and pillaging. Among his military failures, he was TWICE surprised by nocturnal sorties whilst laying siege to towns, on both occasions his camp being plundered and his army routed. Philip de Commynes describes him as "a very fat man".

There was a period, 1481-85, when an attempt was made to convert the arrière-ban into infantry pikemen and halberdiers instead of men-at-arms and archers, but I am not sure that it ever had much effect.

In the wake of Guinegate the French tried to buildup pike infantry, which became, over the years (and perhaps with some early gaps) the old bands, and then the
link

Yes, the francs-archers were disbanded in favour of this pike infantry experiment. I haven't been able to find a concrete explanation of whether it lasted though – it seems the camp they were trained at was disbanded after a few years, and I've got conflicting accounts of what happened to this newly trained infantry. Were they sent home, or sent to garrison the frontiers? Were they used in the few military campaigns of the 1480s? Were the 'bands of picardy' or 'bandes francaises' of the 16th century a direct continuation of them, or a new and separate project?

@Charlie:
One theory is that the disbanded French pike ended up in Henry Tudor's army as the 2000-odd French in his force were noted for carrying so-called 'long lances'. These would be pikes, at that time unfamiliar to English eyes.

Barry

The French 1st regiment certainly traces back its history to these attempts of a "new" infantry.
BW: The Francs-Archers were not disbanded, just no longer used and petered out. As their members were excepted from the taille, the tax to finance the army, it was decided the money was more valuable then their contribution. There was another attempt to create "legions" later on, but that also failed. With first class infantry always available for hire in the form of the Swiss or – when these were reluctand – Landsknechts, and sufficient volunteers to hire on for one "aventure" – many from the Gascon – the need for a regular national infantry was not strong in France. Still, the bands created around 1480 were kept and late became the "old bands", as compared to later raised "new bands".

I have not heard of any French infantry joining English service, Warspite. Any specific sources?
Mercenaries certainly roamed around, and the "Black Band" of France at the field of Marignano was a unit raised by the Duke of Saxon for fighting the Frisians – the Duke of Geldern hired them when that campaign saw a short gap and the band looked like it would become unemployed near his borders. He sent them on loan to the new King of France – they later returned to Geldern. The Black Band only made up some 5-6000 of the 12-17000 Landsknechs in the French army of that year, though. It is speculated that the German soldiers of the 1490 disbanded "Black Army" of Hungary went later into Burgundian/Habsburg service under Albrecht and later formed the core of the freelance first "Black Band", that roamed Northern Europe and broke up after being severely beated 1500 in Hemmingstedt under Danish service. Roll calls of some units contain soldiers from Africa to Ireland in their midst, though most were German with a Swiss part.

Sorry. I disgress…

@Puster – yes, concerning the francs-archers I guess I was generalising – I'm aware they were raised again in the reign of Charles VIII. It seems it was Louis XI's idea to abolish them, though whether this actually happened entirely I do not know, and within two or three years he was dead.

When French armies did fight in the low countries in the 1480s (there were a few brief campaigns, mostly re-taking places Maximilian had briefly captured in Artois) it's not entirely clear to me what the makeup of these armies were – ordonnance companies, francs-archers, 'old band' infantry, the arriere-ban and swiss mercenaries all seem possible. For wargaming purposes, I'm happy to interpret such armies as being based around a core of ordonnance companies (so essentially a force of men-at-arms and archers), but I'm eager to hear any info on how prominent these other elements were!

@Puster – actually, do you have some specific info as to when the 'new bands' were raised, and thus when the 'old bands' became known by that name?