Is actually rather easy unless I am missing something.
All the English troops, whichever side they fought on, were basically the same
Men at Arms
Billmen (or equivalent)
Archers
Hobelars (or equivalent)
Artillery
The only real differentiator is which mercenaries/allies available. Most of them were pretty much equivalent to the above apart from Handgunners, Crossbowmen (not sure about these) and later on Pike. Oh and Irish, but I think only the Kerns are markedly different to English types. Any Scots are the same as the English but with fewer archers.
Or am I oversimplifying?
Good topic, David. I like the idea of different morale levels within the broad categories you mentioned. Immediate circumstances in the run-up to a battle could be very important. For example, Tewkesbury was a relatively small affair in terms of troop numbers compared with something like Towton, but there seems to have been a marked difference in the relative attitudes of the two armies. The larger Lancastrian force was tired and hungry after being denied entry to Gloucester, while the Yorkists were eager and on a roll after recent victories. The Yorkist artillery seems to have been better served than their counterparts, possibly being the one arm in which they were superior in numbers after some battlefield captures. So one's rules should take into account such variations, unless one happens to believe that the Lancastrians rolled a lot of 1s and the Yorkist army all 6s. Oh, and there is also the small matter of treachery/non-performance by whole commands in may of these battles, Tewkesbury included...
Totally understand where you are coming from Paul but to me those are scenario specific ratings rather than generic army list ones.
I suspect you need to reflect the contemporary belief that "feed men" were the critical component of armies i.e. retainers and their fellowships. Arrayed men and militias raised from tenantry weren't as potent a force. How you represent this (higher morale? Greater experience? better armed?) is probably down to your rules.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 02, 2020, 06:26:17 PM
I suspect you need to reflect the contemporary belief that "feed men" were the critical component of armies i.e. retainers and their fellowships. Arrayed men and militias raised from tenantry weren't as potent a force. How you represent this (higher morale? Greater experience? better armed?) is probably down to your rules.
I must admit I've often wondered about the various contingents. Somebody could bring with him his retainers, but also the county militia etc. When his force was drawn up in battle, was it was drawn up as one block, effectively 'stiffened' militia, or was the militia formed up as a separate 'unit' (whatever one of them was)
I would go with the stiffened militia approach.
I suspect that whilst the overall number of different troop types is quite small, individual armies could vary wildly in their compositions. I note that the WRG army list included separate variations for the armies of
- Yorkist
- Lancastrian
- Richard III
- Tudor
- Yorkist Pretenders
In adition to English troops, the lists also allow for various foreign contingents, such as
- Welsh
- Irish
- Northern Border types
- Burgundians
- Germans (provided by Burgundians)
- French
- Breton
Including all of these, your rules should probably include consideration of handguns, crossbows, petards, spearmen (as distinct from bllmen), axemen (as distinct from billmen), pikes, as well as the various French types described in Duncan Head's recent Slingshot article.
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 02, 2020, 08:46:34 PM
I would go with the stiffened militia approach.
It possibly depends on how the rules work but I'd imagine in a pitched battle the heavy infantry would have the good stuff in front with the militia types encouraging from the back, with maybe little islands of men-at-arms round the standards. I'm less sure on archers - would they be mixed?
QuoteIncluding all of these, your rules should probably include consideration of handguns, crossbows, petards, spearmen (as distinct from bllmen), axemen (as distinct from billmen), pikes, as well as the various French types described in Duncan Head's recent Slingshot article.
On distinctions between bills, axes and spears I'd be very dubious. In a skirmish, when you are dealing with individuals yes but when dealing with assorted militia types, some of whom had bills, some axes and some spears in varying proportions, it seems improbable that they organised themselves into differently armed contingents.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 03, 2020, 10:45:14 AM
On distinctions between bills, axes and spears I'd be very dubious. In a skirmish, when you are dealing with individuals yes but when dealing with assorted militia types, some of whom had bills, some axes and some spears in varying proportions, it seems improbable that they organised themselves into differently armed contingents.
I was thinking more of the various allied/foreign contingents that crop up in the battles. For example, Welsh are predominantly long spears as opposed to bills or a mixture of weapons. Northern Border staves seem to have distinct weappons and tactics to currours/hobilars. Irish tend to be some variant on danish axe rather than a spear or bill, etc, etc.
I don't think there is a solid base of evidence for any units of spearmen from Wales, simply because we don't know much about weaponry of the time. The fact that Wales had its own form of bill in the 16th century might make us pause. Mixed bill/spear units do seem to be present in Henry VIII Welsh militia, though, so this could well be rooted in 15th century practice.
Distinguishing between types of polearms (bills, axes, voulges, guisarmes etc.) depends on the rules but I can't think of much functional reason.
Apart from galloglass (who didn't fight in England) axes were rare in Ireland by the 15th century. The Irish at Stoke were kern so armed with javelins and knives.
Cheers
Mick
Good debate
I tend to shy away from differently armed units other than those I outlined above.
My position is that the idea of units themselves are us forcing concepts from different eras into this one. We use it to break down a conglomeration of troops ( A Battle) so that one part of it may get pushed back or routed.
I have covered the foreign troops under mercenaries/allies
Quick question on Stoke - it seems rather odd that the only troops brought over from Ireland were kerns (javelin armed skirmishers) - surely armoured guys with big chopping weapons would have been much more useful?
I personally suspect that you might get 'units' formed by men of separate nations (Welsh, French, Germans) because of language problems rather than the difference in weapons
With regard to mixing archers, all, whether they were militia or retained, would doubtless use the same techniques, (and probably competed against each other at the butts on Sunday anyway). So I can see them being mixed, perhaps the retained being regarded as NCOs or forming a front rank where they might be able to use any superior accuracy.
With the rest of the infantry, I suspect that we're more hung up on weaponry than they were and I would guess men at arms around the leaders, with the best retained men stiffening the others, with the poorest at the back,
The Irish at Stoke were led by the earl of Kildare's brother and Kildare had few galloglass at that date: the first in his employ formed an understrength company of just 24 men in 1478. Even at the height of power he only maintained a couple of hundred directly - they were neither numerous nor cheap.
Kern were however plentiful and expendable. Sometimes you field what you've got, not what you'd like :)
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on June 03, 2020, 07:27:40 PM
The Irish at Stoke were led by the earl of Kildare's brother and Kildare had few galloglass at that date: the first in his employ formed an understrength company of just 24 men in 1478. Even at the height of power he only maintained a couple of hundred directly - they were neither numerous nor cheap.
Kern were however plentiful and expendable. Sometimes you field what you've got, not what you'd like :)
Cheers
Mick
I suspect that the galloglass were better deployed making sure home was safe when you went off on your foreign jaunt with the cheap and expendable kern
Was there no intermediate type between gallowglas and Kern? I am right in saying that Kern were javelin skirmishers not likely to be of much use on an English battlefield
Although Kern fought as skirmishers in the running fights that were common in Irish warfare, in the rare pitched battles they usually fought as a shield wall (though not an especially dense one). As their usual opponents were other kern, that wasn't a problem. At Stoke, "they did as well as any naked (I.e. Unarmoured) men" but were slaughtered nonetheless.
Cheers
Mick
Thanks Mick that makes a lot more sense.
On a similar vein I did not have the impressthat the likes of Burgundian handgunners would get involved in melee or is that another misconception of mine?
For generic lists would kerns be restricted to Yorkist Pretender?
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 04, 2020, 06:53:26 AM
For generic lists would kerns be restricted to Yorkist Pretender?
One would need to look at the various campaigns to confirm who could have what, but according to my army lists some of the Lancastrian armies also included Irish.
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 04, 2020, 04:07:45 AM
On a similar vein I did not have the impressthat the likes of Burgundian handgunners would get involved in melee or is that another misconception of mine?
Most medieval missile troops appear to have been c**p in hand-to-hand combat and would therefore avoid it. Consequently, they tended to brigaded with other types such as bills, spears, pikes, men at arms, etc. Any detached groups caught in the open had a habit of coming off worst.
The notable exception were English longbowmen who were notoriously aggressive and, during the Hundred Years War, would be used as in the role of men at arms when there were insufficient of the latter available. Notwithstanding, longbowmen were not as good as the more conventional melee types, and could come a serious cropper when caught in the open, such as at Patay.
The earl of Wiltshire, a Lancastrian, was also earl of Ormonde in Ireland and I believe he raised some smallish contingents of kern for service in England. Despite the rest of Ireland being largely Yorkist in sympathy I don't think any troops were sent, apart from the large contingent at Stoke
Cheers
Mick
You are doubtless referring to James Butler, 5th Earl of Ormond who, according to Wikipedia, was one of Margaret of Anjou's staunchest supporters. Apparently he not only raised forces in Ireland for the Lancastrian cause, but also fought in the First Battle of St Albans in 1455, Battle of Wakefield in 1460, Battle of Mortimer's Cross in 1461 and at the Battle of Towton. After the last battle, he was decapitated at Newcastle.
At Mortimer's Cross it is noted that he led French, Breton and Irish contingents. (Of course, the Lancastrians were led by the Welshman, Owen Tudor.)
8) 8) 8)
That's the chap.
Incidentally, a further reason why Kildare didn't send galloglass to Stoke was that they were usually retained troops which would make things sticky should Simnel lose (which of course he did). The kern used at Stoke seem to have been hired freelancers so left fewer fingerprints.
Cheers
Mick
Any thoughts on an Irish army in Ireland?
QuoteThe notable exception were English longbowmen who were notoriously aggressive and, during the Hundred Years War, would be used as in the role of men at arms when there were insufficient of the latter available. Notwithstanding, longbowmen were not as good as the more conventional melee types, and could come a serious cropper when caught in the open, such as at Patay.
English 'professional' armies become increasingly dominated by archers. Could it be that during the Wars of the Roses the archers raised by whichever side tend to be the better trained/quality troops whilst the bulk of the rest of the forces are comprised of 'billmen' of varying degrees of training and experience? Just a thought.
Nick Harbud:
My above post was obviously quoting from your post. Please excuse my ineptitude!
My gut feeling is that equipment, training and 'quality' will be pretty well linked. So the retained billmen or longbowmen will have better kit that the county troops or whatever.
So it might be that you could have three basic troop types.
Men at arms, mounted or dismounted
Billmen, ranging from good through to mediocre
Archers, again ranging from good to mediocre
on occasion you might have cases where there was only retained billmen or only 'shire billmen' but I'd assume you'd normally have 'stiffened billmen in one formation.
Bowmen would be the same
Then you'd have 'Irish', 'Scots' and 'Welsh' as separate units. They'd probably be of one quality, the rubbish wouldn't have come.
Personally I'd say the more simple the lists, the better. Too much detail could give the impression of spurious accuracy
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 05, 2020, 09:07:19 AM
Any thoughts on an Irish army in Ireland?
Just looking at the DBA lists (which have to capture the spirit of an army because there isn't room for too much fussiness)
Pure Irish (no Scots or Anglo Irish) would be a 12 element army consisting of
3 light horse
7 Kern who are happy to fight with shields and javelins at close quarters (Three of these Kern can be replaced with galloglaich)
2 Kern skirmishing with javelins or bows.
Quote from: barry carter on June 05, 2020, 10:59:41 AM
English 'professional' armies become increasingly dominated by archers. Could it be that during the Wars of the Roses the archers raised by whichever side tend to be the better trained/quality troops whilst the bulk of the rest of the forces are comprised of 'billmen' of varying degrees of training and experience? Just a thought.
Billmen are a bit of an enigma in the 15th century. They are certainly there in the various territorial forces but, unlike archers, there is little said of their activities on battlefields. It is certainly true that plenty of them had the same basic "harness" set as the archers, so they don't seem to be a bunch of yokels with improvised weapons. Some may have carried enough kit to take their place as less-than-fully-equipped men-at-arms. One possibility is that the troops called up by the magnates were chosen for their physical capability and kit. Those who were good archers served as that, those who were less good brought a bill or other staff weapon.
I remember reading somewhere (this forum?) That the term archer was often used as a generic term for foot.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 06, 2020, 12:05:02 PM
Quote from: barry carter on June 05, 2020, 10:59:41 AM
English 'professional' armies become increasingly dominated by archers. Could it be that during the Wars of the Roses the archers raised by whichever side tend to be the better trained/quality troops whilst the bulk of the rest of the forces are comprised of 'billmen' of varying degrees of training and experience? Just a thought.
Billmen are a bit of an enigma in the 15th century. They are certainly there in the various territorial forces but, unlike archers, there is little said of their activities on battlefields. It is certainly true that plenty of them had the same basic "harness" set as the archers, so they don't seem to be a bunch of yokels with improvised weapons. Some may have carried enough kit to take their place as less-than-fully-equipped men-at-arms. One possibility is that the troops called up by the magnates were chosen for their physical capability and kit. Those who were good archers served as that, those who were less good brought a bill or other staff weapon.
Certainly everybody should, by law, have been able to use a bow. And by law you had to turn up with kit appropriate to your wealth.
So perhaps men who weren't good archers (and everybody would know it due to practice at the butts) would come with a Bill.
Also some might have a natural facility with it, or had taken to practising with it
I suspect that the commissioner who summoned the array had to take what he got. It might be that if he felt they were short of archers he could have somebody go round asking if any of the putative billmen were any good with a bow. He might even have been able to issue them with a bow from stocks held. But I suspect he didn't have all that much input.
"The roll says the area has to produce 400 men with weapons and harness according to their rank and wealth. Here you are, 400, as per the roll."
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 06, 2020, 12:31:21 PM
I remember reading somewhere (this forum?) That the term archer was often used as a generic term for foot.
Certainly, if we take earlier 15th century examples, archer was a pay grade which could be applied to others, though I've not seen it applied to billmen. But then, billmen don't figure in professional armies. Also, there may have been some "nominal" archers . If we look at the retinue of Edward of York on the Agincourt campaign we see him topping up a shortfall in archers by paying household servants as archers. later outside Harfleur, he has sappers and bargemen on the payroll as archers. 23 of his archers have "insufficient equipment to serve as an archer" - presumably no bow or arrows. All early than the WOTR but demonstrating "archer" might be used loosely.
QuoteCertainly everybody should, by law, have been able to use a bow. And by law you had to turn up with kit appropriate to your wealth.
True , but the lowest class could substitute a staff or poleweapon for a bow according to the law. I think you have the right explanation that there wasn't much point demanding a man who was a substandard archer bring a bow along when he could bring a bill and be more useful.
It is probably not a coincidence that the modern Irish word for a soldier is saighdiuir, from Sagittarius: since native professionals were not bowmen the term must derive from English usage.
For a native Irish army fighting in Ireland in pitched battle I would suggest:
10% to 20% Nobles - light armour (aketon and mail), either mounted skirmishers or (more usually) on foot as a loose shield wall with javelin and shield
0% to 25% Galloglass - light armour, close order, axe. They were accompanied by dart-throwing attendants but I wouldn't bother representing these separately unless your rules have a very low men:figure ratio
5% to 10% archers / slingers. You could represent these as separately deployed skirmishers or have them shooting over the shield wall from behind
Rest Kern - unarmoured with javelin and shield. Although published army lists tend to allow these to be a mix of skirmishers and loose formation troops I am increasingly convinced that they really only skirmished in raids and running fights so would deploy them as a shield wall for pitched battles.
Cheers
Mick
Thanks Mick. So no mounted troops ? I wondered if the light horse were more scouts than battle fighting troops
At Knockdoe, the Burke army had a small detachment of (possibly mercenary) horse on the left wing but the few narrative battle accounts indicate that nobles usually dismounted to stiffen the foot. Battles were however rare and most fighting occurred in the context of cattle raiding and the like, where the nobles fought mounted as effective javelin skirmishers.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Erpingham on June 06, 2020, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 06, 2020, 12:31:21 PM
I remember reading somewhere (this forum?) That the term archer was often used as a generic term for foot.
Certainly, if we take earlier 15th century examples, archer was a pay grade which could be applied to others, though I've not seen it applied to billmen. But then, billmen don't figure in professional armies. Also, there may have been some "nominal" archers . If we look at the retinue of Edward of York on the Agincourt campaign we see him topping up a shortfall in archers by paying household servants as archers. later outside Harfleur, he has sappers and bargemen on the payroll as archers. 23 of his archers have "insufficient equipment to serve as an archer" - presumably no bow or arrows. All early than the WOTR but demonstrating "archer" might be used loosely.
QuoteCertainly everybody should, by law, have been able to use a bow. And by law you had to turn up with kit appropriate to your wealth.
True , but the lowest class could substitute a staff or poleweapon for a bow according to the law. I think you have the right explanation that there wasn't much point demanding a man who was a substandard archer bring a bow along when he could bring a bill and be more useful.
The term 'archer' does seem to have often been used as meaning a soldier, just as in the later 16thc/early 17thc the French used the term 'soldats morionnez' to mean footmen.
I've been doing some further reading which touches on this recently. David Grummitt is particularly of the view that "archer" was a generic word for soldier in 15th century and that many "archers" sent to France in the mid 15th century were actually billmen (he makes this case in The Calais Garrison ) However, he is directly countered by Bell et al in The Soldier in Later Medieval England who state that, except for a small number of permitted exemptions, a man listed as an archer needed to have a bow and be able to use it. There is a particular issue in Grummitt interpretation of the so-called Strickland contract. Grummitt believes it relates to a contingent being sent to France in 1449. Bell et al, however, hold it actually relates to a muster in c.1500 in the reign of Henry VII and it is a review of local troops available against the Scots.
It does not seem credible that the only English foot troops taking part in Wars of the Roses battles were men at arms and archers
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 10, 2020, 11:26:14 AM
It does not seem credible that the only English foot troops taking part in Wars of the Roses battles were men at arms and archers
Why?
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 10, 2020, 11:26:14 AM
It does not seem credible that the only English foot troops taking part in Wars of the Roses battles were men at arms and archers
It seems positively unlikely given the appearance of men with other weapons in the few muster lists that survive from the period.
True 8)
I think the difficulty comes in deciding their numbers or their significance. Not much problem then :)
We have enough mention of archers in battle to agree they had some significance in battles. There is virtually no mention of billmen, so we can even ask "where they there?". As I've said, given that they turn up in the muster documents we have, and they are mentioned more frequently after the WOTR, we might conclude they are there in the background, for example, when a territorial magnate calls out his local forces or there is a peasant rising. We might query images like the Beauchamp pageant, with its armoured billmen, and wonder whether some of the lesser ranks of men-at-arms, such as the hobilar class and household servants equipped by magnates, might carry bills on occassion - though in practical terms this just makes them a variation on the pollaxe armed variety, rather than a troop type. But it is a conundrum.
I think it also depends on the definition of men at arms. I automatically think of guys in a fair bit of mainly plate armour. Could that definition be stretched to include some of better armoured Billmen?
From memory the muster rolls from Cumberland and Westmoreland show a lot of spearmen (admittedly a little later than this).
My suspicion (note how I swerved round using the word 'guess') is that the 'non-bow' formed up together as 'bills'.
Quote from: Jim Webster on June 11, 2020, 08:34:37 AM
From memory the muster rolls from Cumberland and Westmoreland show a lot of spearmen (admittedly a little later than this).
My suspicion (note how I swerved round using the word 'guess') is that the 'non-bow' formed up together as 'bills'.
This research also showed the strange case of districts who were all spears and all bills, if I recall. suggesting either local tendencies or, more likely, lazy record keeping. If we look at musters from various places in 15th century, there are plenty of men with "staves" rather than bills. In this case, a staff is probably a spear, so mixed units of bills and spears among militia might be quite common. Long spears appear in Welsh 16th century musters, as do clubs, so they might exist in slightly different proportions there. I noted while reading this week that Rhys ap Thomas was commissioned to raise 200 long spearmen in Wales to fight in Brittany in 1488, so the evidence certainly creeps backwards towrds the WOTR.