Writing army lists for the Wars of the Roses

[Jim Webster]

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

[Dave Knight]

 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

[Mick Hession]

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

[Dave Knight]

Thanks Mick that makes a lot more sense. 

[Dave Knight]

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?

[Dave Knight]

For generic lists would kerns be restricted to Yorkist Pretender?

[Nick Harbud]

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.

[Nick Harbud]

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.

[Mick Hession]

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

[Nick Harbud]

You are doubtless referring to James Butler, 5^th 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.)

[Mick Hession]

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

[Dave Knight]

Any thoughts on an Irish army in Ireland?

[barry carter]

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.

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.

[barry carter]

Nick Harbud:
My above post was obviously quoting from your post. Please excuse my ineptitude!

[Jim Webster]

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