Writing army lists for the Wars of the Roses

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Dave Knight]

I remember reading somewhere (this forum?) That the term archer was  often used as a generic term for foot.

[Jim Webster]

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."

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

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.

[Mick Hession]

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

[Dave Knight]

Thanks Mick.  So no mounted troops ?  I wondered if the light horse were more scouts than battle fighting troops

[Mick Hession]

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

[barry carter]

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.

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Dave Knight]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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?

[Erpingham]

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. 

[nikgaukroger]

True 

[Erpingham]

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.