So footmen in medieval Scots armies were primarily spearmen.
Certainly true in the big set peice battles
Sark is essentially large scale border warfare, Percy v Douglas
Would we still expect the Scots to be mainly spearmen or would they be likely to have a proportion of bladed weapons ?
Pittscottie I think says spears, axes and halberds, but he is writing mid 16th century.
The most recent regulation (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-array-of-knychtis-lordes-and-vtheris.html) to Sark (6th March 1429) mentions common soldiers should carry longbow, sword and buckler or failing that a good axe or brogit staff. A Brogit staff means a spiked staff, equivalent to the English piked staff, which was actually something a traveller would carry, so some sort of short spear may be meant. It is also a direct equivalent of Flemish gepinde staf, which is the proper name of what is known as a goedendag. Others have suggested a spiked morgenstern type weapon. Take your pick.
Men at arms were expected to be equipped in standard European men-at-arms style.
Oddly, though spears are mentioned for poor people in earlier regulations and pikes appear in later ones, there is nothing about them here. So, I think that if the Sark army was considered to be mainly relying on retainers and wealthier tenants, its probably a mixture of archers and axemen, perhaps bulked up by some levy-type spearmen.
From the Battle of Otterburn song/poem
The moon was clear, the day drew near
The spears in flinders flew
Many's the bold Englishman
Ere day these Scotsmen slew
Spears and swords are mentioned, Percy having a notably long spear.
Roy
Though we should note that this is probably a 16th century ballad describing events 50 years before Sark, so should be used with caution. Also that spear in English and Scots was the standard word for a horseman's lance.
We might note legally the weapon the Scots are most associated with in the 15th century is the axe, if they are not bow armed. This doesn't mean that spears weren't there but their ubiquity should not be assumed.
Time to roll out the only picture of a Scottish battle formation. It illustrates Bannockburn but dates from the 1440s, the period of Sark. Note the mixture of weapons - long spears, long axes, arming swords, a couple of two-handed swords and a Danish axe.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Battle_of_Bannockburn.jpg)
Archers were not present in sufficient numbers to provide an effective counter to their English counterparts.
If spearmen were present it sounds as if numbers were probably not enough to form effective schiltrons
I will rate the commons as mixed weapons broadly equivalent to English Bills
Men at Arms have their usual selection of knightly equipment
Sounds like a good plan.
How will you order the battles - in lines or one behind the other? The sources talk of right, centre, left. But the two vans clash before the rest - they should be on opposite sides of the battlefield.
My plan was for them to be in lines.
I have not found a lot of information on the battle other than the English had assumed that their longbowmen would decimate the Scots but were suprised when the Scots were able to dash forward and brush the unsupported archers aside. The Scots then won the melee. I had not picked up on th vans being advanced
The four sources are online - I read them recently. Auchinleck - the closest in time - lacks detail. The other three (Pittscottie, Holinshed and Buchanan) are all late and not independent (Holinshed does not give us an English account, alas, but a version based on the Scots sources).
Pittcottie gives a good idea of events - his account is here (https://digital.nls.uk/publications-by-scottish-clubs/archive/107422595)
Essentially, the Scots van attacks, gets shot up, fall back, is called a bunch of wimps by their leader Wallace of Craigie, and charge again, this time getting into contact. As the English began to fail, Magnus Redmayne, the English commander opposite the van throws in a desperate counter attack aimed at Wallace. Redmayne dies but Wallace is badly wounded (he dies three months later).
I suspect rather than the vans actually being advanced what is happening is we have a detailed account of the action on one wing being used but accounts of what happened on the other fronts are vaguer. It is possible the Scots attacked all along the line and the big fight was in the middle where the Percies and Douglases were but the fall from grace of the Douglases a little afer the battle led to their part being airbrushed out. Speculation.
Interesting - thanks.
I think that I will just let the 3 battles each side face off against each other and see what happens. WE will be using our Wars of the Roses rules which downplay the role of archery anyway. They can have an effect if they roll well but can also be easily brushed aside which fits this battle rather well.
Looking forward to the reports.
Hopefully giving it 2 run outsMonday and Thursday next week
Yes, it will be interesting to see how you get on.
I will also be interested to hear how you go. The view of the medieval Scots has been very much coloured by certain wargames writers. Yes the common levy would have been pretty much spearmen, as it's about the simplest weapon that can be supplied and used en masse by untrained men. But in most cases these wouldn't have been who went to war.
Thinking about armour as well. In my mind they are all borderers and I would not expect the old adage of te Scots having less armour than the English to apply
Thoughts?
Well, legally, both sides have similar obligations on the kit they had to have. And I've seen the assumption in general that the Scots lowland zone was pretty similar in economic terms to the North of England in the Middle Ages. We have a description of English border horse causing a nuisance in Ripon in 1441
"like men of were, with brest plate, vambracs and rerebrace, greves and quischers, gorgett and salett, long spears and lancegayes; and the simplest arrayed of all the said persons had either a gestiment, or a hawburgon, or a thick jack, upon him, and either a pricknighate or a sallett upon their heads"
Plumpton Letters
I suspect a Scottish border retinue would be similar.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 11, 2020, 09:11:07 AM... a pricknighate ...
Now there's a word I have not seen before. Every Google instance seems to link back to this passage; one suggests "[read: prickinghate]".
A prickinghat is a light cavalry helmet, I believe, a pricker being a light cavalryman. It isn't the only example e.g. this regulation for Scots equipment
And that no poor man nor unprovided be charged to come to any raids in England, and that each man whose goods extend to 20 merks be furnished at least with jack, with sleeves to the hand or else a pair of splints, a sellat or a pricking hat, a sword and a buckler, a bow and a sheaf, and if he can not shoot that he shall have an axe and a targe either of leather or of board with two hands on the back.
James II 1456/4
Targe here, of course, in its general meaning of shield. The pair of splints is thought to be a reference to what re-enactors call "jack chains" - an arm defence.
If they weren't, they would have nicked it. There would be little to no difference other than deliberately adopted symbols of allegiance, whether field signs or headgear.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 11, 2020, 09:11:07 AM
Well, legally, both sides have similar obligations on the kit they had to have. And I've seen the assumption in general that the Scots lowland zone was pretty similar in economic terms to the North of England in the Middle Ages. We have a description of English border horse causing a nuisance in Ripon in 1441
"like men of were, with brest plate, vambracs and rerebrace, greves and quischers, gorgett and salett, long spears and lancegayes; and the simplest arrayed of all the said persons had either a gestiment, or a hawburgon, or a thick jack, upon him, and either a pricknighate or a sallett upon their heads"
Plumpton Letters
I suspect a Scottish border retinue would be similar.
depending on the circumstances they could be the same men ;)
Shhhh Jim. The whole concept of a 'border' was fairly fluid at the time, and the Warden's writ was only in effect within his arm's length.
Quote from: DougM on May 11, 2020, 04:08:54 PM
Shhhh Jim. The whole concept of a 'border' was fairly fluid at the time, and the Warden's writ was only in effect within his arm's length.
with a less well policed extension if he cocked his pistol 8)
Battle reports here http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4480.0
We are going to run the scenario again twice this coming week