When a town goes to war, what kind of arms do they distribute to their citizens?
And what's more, how many citizens are there, at what levels of wealth?
Answers here for one mid-15th Century town.
https://martcult.hypotheses.org/1906
Hi,
Sorry for the underappreciated post, but I liked a lot. If you want help with statistics (I'm a Engineer) you can use my help.
Something about your text: you mentioned most of the weapons distributed were crossbows, but how many weapons were not? Also, why the city only stock mail armor, considering that coats-of-plates would be way cheaper; in Portugal, they supplanted infantry armor already by the 14th century (our only surviving Regimento de Coudeis, which works like a Comission of Array, dated 1430/40, prescribes CoP for wealthier crossbowmen).
Sorry for the underappreciated post, but I liked a lot. If you want help with statistics (I'm a Engineer) you can use my help.
Something about your text: you mentioned most of the weapons distributed were crossbows, but how many weapons were not? Also, why the city only stock mail armor, considering that coats-of-plates would be way cheaper; in Portugal, they supplanted infantry armor already by the 14th century (our only surviving Regimento de Coudeis, which works like a Comission of Array, dated 1430/40, prescribes CoP for wealthier crossbowmen).
If you haven't already done so Pedro, I'd recommend watching this short talk on the wider research of which the inventory is part :
https://martcult.hypotheses.org/1026
One of the aspects to the question about other equipment is there was an expectation that citizens would arm themselves to their degree. The city focussed on crossbows and firearms, but had a stock of equipment to assist those whose own personal kit fell short of the desired level. As to why mail, maybe because it is long lasting, easy to store and maintain, which would count for something in a city arsenal?
https://martcult.hypotheses.org/1026
One of the aspects to the question about other equipment is there was an expectation that citizens would arm themselves to their degree. The city focussed on crossbows and firearms, but had a stock of equipment to assist those whose own personal kit fell short of the desired level. As to why mail, maybe because it is long lasting, easy to store and maintain, which would count for something in a city arsenal?
Hey guys, yeah sorry to chime in late, had some rather tragic computer hardware problems the last few days.
I agree with Anthony, the vast majority of the citizens (as is clear from the article) were not armed by the city but rather they owned their own arms and armor (this is usually required for citizens, more on that in a second) and / or by the intermediate organizations they were part of, such as craft organizations. From other documents we know that craft organizations such as the cutlers, weavers, or butchers craft owned a lot of the heavier weapons, such as firearms, which were needed both for a siege and for internal disputes within the town. The same was also true of the wealthier merchant and merchant-patrician families.
In several incidents which took place in various towns in the 15th Century, guild or craft arsenals seem to have been made available with weapons such as crossbows, polearms, pikes, firearms and small cannon being deployed directly from the guild house.
Each household in a city with this kind of Central European charter would be obligated to provide a baseline of arms and armor for the people residing in the house, including all men of fighting age (usually 16-60) who were not infirm or in some other way incapable of fighting. This would include servants, journeymen and so on, for whom the household patriarch or matriarch would be responsible.
We also know that both men and women were active in the shooting sports which were very popular in these towns, so presumably many people not formally in the militia would have been available to actively assist in the general defense of the town walls in the event of a real emergency.
I agree with Anthony, the vast majority of the citizens (as is clear from the article) were not armed by the city but rather they owned their own arms and armor (this is usually required for citizens, more on that in a second) and / or by the intermediate organizations they were part of, such as craft organizations. From other documents we know that craft organizations such as the cutlers, weavers, or butchers craft owned a lot of the heavier weapons, such as firearms, which were needed both for a siege and for internal disputes within the town. The same was also true of the wealthier merchant and merchant-patrician families.
In several incidents which took place in various towns in the 15th Century, guild or craft arsenals seem to have been made available with weapons such as crossbows, polearms, pikes, firearms and small cannon being deployed directly from the guild house.
Each household in a city with this kind of Central European charter would be obligated to provide a baseline of arms and armor for the people residing in the house, including all men of fighting age (usually 16-60) who were not infirm or in some other way incapable of fighting. This would include servants, journeymen and so on, for whom the household patriarch or matriarch would be responsible.
We also know that both men and women were active in the shooting sports which were very popular in these towns, so presumably many people not formally in the militia would have been available to actively assist in the general defense of the town walls in the event of a real emergency.
One of the more interesting things about the article to me was the tax imposed to raise money for the war. Medieval taxes were typically 'progressive' in the sense that wealthier people were expected to pay more. These impromptu war or crisis taxes give us a useful snapshot of the economic stratification in the town at that time. What is striking to me about Fribourg in this case is that they seemed to have an unusually large "middle class" compared to many other cities I've seen data for during the 15th Century.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
| Hey guys, yeah sorry to chime in late, had some rather tragic computer hardware problems the last few days.
I agree with Anthony, the vast majority of the citizens (as is clear from the article) were not armed by the city but rather they owned their own arms and armor (this is usually required for citizens, more on that in a second) and / or by the intermediate organizations they were part of, such as craft organizations. |
That could be deduced, yes, as most European Kingdoms and likewise free cities would held people accountable for equipment according to their wealth (aquantiados, as they were known in Portugal). But in Portugal, like in Castille, no surviving document that details the requirements on foot equipment prescribes any defensive gear apart from essentials like helmet and sometimes shields (take the Castillian Ordenanças de Burgos, 1385, after Aljubarrota, as an example). The Portuguese one even has a weird demand that infantrymen should own shoulder armor, but it's completely silent on other body armor; some people take this as an indication the King would provide the equipment from the Royal Arsenals in Lisbon, but how likely is that?
I had a strong discussion with a Historian on the equipment used by the Lisbon militia at Aljubarrota (1385), because Fernão Lopes quotes a priest's discourse after the battle praising Portuguese victory despite poor equipment, he says:
"the one that had a [mail] coat didn't have padded armor, and the one that had a coat-of-plates didn't have plate arm harness. In such a way that if all their arms were divided as they should, it wouldn't equip a third part of the men"
He takes it as a gross lie as it's well known the Portuguese knights and man-at-arms were up to the standards of their time, while I take this as a reference for the foot-soldiery state of equipment. I mean: the English pattern that all Englishmen were to be armed with gambeson and helmet as a minimum would be the norm for all the medieval armies, right? I'm excluding Ireland and perhaps Scotland from this, but I don't believe French, German, Spanish or even Norse armies would be under these standards, except if convinced otherwise.
There's a register for a Medieval English city in the 14th century and there was barely 10/20 people capable of affording the basic infantry equipment of padded gambeson, helmet, sword & buckler + main weapon; Lafayette C. Curtis argues they would be provided with armor, which made me think: was Freiburg a type of city that didn't heavily provide their militia with armor? The fact it's in the Switzerland area also reminded me of this:
| Quote: |
| 104 comes from a picture of the St Jacob-en-Birs campaign of 1444. He wears no armour other than a sallet of North Italian type, and other than his pike carries only a wooden-handled Schweizergegen, a characteristically Swiss weapon that was a cross between sword and dagger. Pikemen being chiefly supplied by the lower classes, it was not uncommon for them to wear little or no armour; indeed, in 1476 an entire Confederate army of 6,000 men was apparently entirely unarmoured. Nevertheless, captured enemy armour was pressed into service whenever available. |
HEATH, Ian. Armies of the Middle Ages vol. 1, Swiss Pikemen
I don't know, perhaps that might be important ...
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
| Each household in a city with this kind of Central European charter would be obligated to provide a baseline of arms and armor for the people residing in the house, including all men of fighting age (usually 16-60) who were not infirm or in some other way incapable of fighting. This would include servants, journeymen and so on, for whom the household patriarch or matriarch would be responsible.
We also know that both men and women were active in the shooting sports which were very popular in these towns, so presumably many people not formally in the militia would have been available to actively assist in the general defense of the town walls in the event of a real emergency. |
This might explain the commutation made by the Portuguese King on the people's appeal, that in the late 15th century he changed the obligation of the more affluent aquantiados from war horse and full plate armor to actually two suits of plate armor; but I had no idea on to who this spare armor would be given and how the owner would keep a tract on it.
Shooting guilds (archer's guild, crossbowmen's guild, arquebusiers' guild) were a norm in Central European towns like they were in Netherlands and in some German cities? And how about fencing guilds?
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
|
That could be deduced, yes, as most European Kingdoms and likewise free cities would held people accountable for equipment according to their wealth (aquantiados, as they were known in Portugal). But in Portugal, like in Castille, no surviving document that details the requirements on foot equipment prescribes any defensive gear apart from essentials like helmet and sometimes shields (take the Castillian Ordenanças de Burgos, 1385, after Aljubarrota, as an example). The Portuguese one even has a weird demand that infantrymen should own shoulder armor, but it's completely silent on other body armor; some people take this as an indication the King would provide the equipment from the Royal Arsenals in Lisbon, but how likely is that? I had a strong discussion with a Historian on the equipment used by the Lisbon militia at Aljubarrota (1385), because Fernão Lopes quotes a priest's discourse after the battle praising Portuguese victory despite poor equipment, he says: "the one that had a [mail] coat didn't have padded armor, and the one that had a coat-of-plates didn't have plate arm harness. In such a way that if all their arms were divided as they should, it wouldn't equip a third part of the men" He takes it as a gross lie as it's well known the Portuguese knights and man-at-arms were up to the standards of their time, while I take this as a reference for the foot-soldiery state of equipment. I mean: the English pattern that all Englishmen were to be armed with gambeson and helmet as a minimum would be the norm for all the medieval armies, right? I'm excluding Ireland and perhaps Scotland from this, but I don't believe French, German, Spanish or even Norse armies would be under these standards, except if convinced otherwise. There's a register for a Medieval English city in the 14th century and there was barely 10/20 people capable of affording the basic infantry equipment of padded gambeson, helmet, sword & buckler + main weapon; Lafayette C. Curtis argues they |
Yeah, I was referring to Central European towns with German town-law charters (like Fribourg), basically between the Rhine and Vistula and from the Alps North. I think the rules were similar in Italy too but I'm not as well versed on that. The Low Countries also had very similar rules.
In towns under most forms of German town law, including I think every town in what is now Switzerland no matter what their political allegiance, you were obligated to purchase armor, usually consisting of a breast plate (or equivalent, coat of plates etc.) and helmet at minimum, and to own a sword and at least one other weapon. These arms were routinely inspected and we have many records of fines for not having armor, for having broken or rusty armor, for borrowing armor for inspections or militia / town watch muster, and even for sending your wife to stand watch in your stead, wearing your armor. This is all very well documented both in the town charters and subsequent town council records and so on. We even have paintings of burghers in their armor, such as these below from the accountant Matthäus Schwarz of Augsburg. Later it became very fashionable for guilds to have group portraits done in their militia armor in Flanders and Holland.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
Mattäus seems to have owned multiple harness, but he was a wealthy man as an accountant for the Fugger family.
I know that realms such as England and France where the monarchy was very dominant over the lower estates, the burgher estate as such was not recognized and in particular after the 1390s ownership of arms by commoners was at least somewhat regulated, while the towns themselves ceded authority to the monarchy, losing most of their autonomy. So certain 'estates' in certain places would be armed, but to the standards of the King, essentially, which may or may not include full armor. In France in particular they had a lot of trouble trying to raise infantry from their own burghers and (especially) peasants, such as with the Francs Archers finding that it led to social disruptions (uppity peasants, basically) and the troops were neither reliable or effective. Ultimately France disarmed the Francs Archers (more than once) and ended up relying on expensive Swiss Mercenaries for infantry.
Portugal, from what I understand, was kind of a hybrid. I don't know that much about Portugal mind you so take this with a grain of salt, (you probably have access to much better sources on this than I do) but have been reading a little about Besteiro do Conto and other urban militia recently. It seems that the King João I mandated certain forces be recruited from the towns, and specified some things like training and bows, such as requiring weekly training. However these people were recruited from the existing town militia, (again from my limited reading about it in English), and the town itself may have mandated whatever other gear like armor they were required to have as citizens. At least if they were anything like the German towns.
I.e. royal decrees from several subsequent kings covered certain rules of their deployment and training, but the towns themselves were the local authority over most of them so some of those records may be lacking or missing possibly? Again not an expert on Portugal so I'm just guessing.
| Quote: | ||
|
would be provided with armor, which made me think: was Freiburg a type of city that didn't heavily provide their militia with armor? The fact it's in the Switzerland area also reminded me of this:
HEATH, Ian. Armies of the Middle Ages vol. 1, Swiss Pikemen I don't know, perhaps that might be important ... |
I'd really like to see the primary source for that. I am not sure I believe it is accurate. If you look at the various illustrated Swiss Chronicles from the 15th Century, most of their troops on the front line did have armor. The burghers were required by the town charter to own armor. Swiss depictions of the battle of St Jakob an der Birs depict well armed and armored fighters, as you can see below from the Tschachtlanchronik (1470):
[ Linked Image ]
(click here for a more high res version of that image)
..and I am familiar with this battle having written a paper on the subsequent clash between the French Armagnac army under the Dauphin, and the city of Strasbourg through the winter of 1444. The battle of St. Jacob an der Birs itself was and still is controversial because it was a rather painful event for the French (who won, but apparently at substantial cost) and it seemed to end the Dauphin's ambitions to invade the Confederacy. There are several widely varying estimates of the number of Swiss militia who fought in the battle (ranging from 1,500 according to the Bern Chronicle to 4,000 according to Annaeus Piccolomini), the number of French cavalry involved, and the number of French losses. All we know for sure is that they turned around and marched into Alsace after this battle, where they then fought and ultimately lost a prolonged engagement with the city of Strasbourg. (There are also some alternative explanations of why they turned around, though not very credible IMO)
It's worth noting that the cost of basic (metal) armor in the mid 15th Century (somewhere between 3 and 7 marks for most mid-ranged infantry kit) was well within the annual income of a middling artisan from most of these Central European towns, based on what we know of their wealth and income based on tax rolls and so forth. For example in the article I posted in the OP in this thread, it notes that according to the war-tax levied in Fribourg in 1445, 71% of the town (2,256 households out of 3,150) owned between 25 marks and 1,000 marks in taxable wealth, whereas only 22% (704 households) had less than 25 marks of wealth. It seems to have largely (though not exclusively) been these poorer people who were issued crossbows. A military grade crossbow at that time cost about 1 mark.
Not all Swiss warriors were recruited directly from towns though, towns like Bern had a substantial hinterland from which they recruited soldiers, some of them fairly poor peasants, and they also brought them in from other districts like the Vaud. So it's possible the rules were different for some of the rural troops. All I can say for sure is that the town militias did have routine inspections and they were fairly strict about it.
| Quote: |
|
This might explain the commutation made by the Portuguese King on the people's appeal, that in the late 15th century he changed the obligation of the more affluent aquantiados from war horse and full plate armor to actually two suits of plate armor; but I had no idea on to who this spare armor would be given and how the owner would keep a tract on it. Shooting guilds (archer's guild, crossbowmen's guild, arquebusiers' guild) were a norm in Central European towns like they were in Netherlands and in some German cities? And how about fencing guilds? |
Shooting guilds were found all through Central and North European towns, most of which had a German town charter. For example, Riga in Livonia (specifically in what is today Latvia), Gdansk and Elbing in Prussia (today Poland), Krakow and Warsaw in Poland, Wroclaw / Breslau in Silesia (today in Poland), Visby and Stockholm in Sweden, Prague and Brno in Bohemia and Moravia respectively (today Czechia), Bratislava in Northern Hungary (today Slovakia), Vienna in Austria, and I believe both Buda and Pest in Hungary, were all under German town law and in most cases did have shooting guilds. There are records of schützenfest events (big shooting contests) fairly regularly in all of these areas for example.
Most of these towns also had formal cavalry societies or guilds, for example the Constaffler of Zurich or the Brotherhood of the Blackheads in Riga and Tallinn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_Blackheads
Fencing guilds were also found all over, though I'm not sure if they were as ubiquitous or as important for town defense. The Freifechter von der Feder were originally chartered in Prague in 1570, though they seem to have had a presence in various towns at least 100 years prior to that. The Marxbruder were all over, and many fencing masters named by Paulus Kal some time around 1460, as being in the society of Liechtenauer were from across the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Czechia and Austria, based on their names. For example "Virgil von Krakow" and "Lamprecht von Prague".
See the map here
So it seems like the fencing culture was widespread through Central Europe as well.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
| In towns under most forms of German town law, including I think every town in what is now Switzerland no matter what their political allegiance, you were obligated to purchase armor, usually consisting of a breast plate (or equivalent, coat of plates etc.) and helmet at minimum, and to own a sword and at least one other weapon. |
But it wouldn't exist variation of demand between poorer German cities and more affluent ones? I could think of Southern Germany being particularly poor and war-torn by this era; or perhaps that would be specific to the countryside. In the Ordinance of Burgos, the King of Castile do lighten the demands in the southern part of his kingdom, so at a specific amount of money you would be required to be a man-at-arms in Castille, but you could be a light cavalry jinete on the south owning the same amount of wealth.
I'm interpreting the absence of armor in surviving Iberian Ordinances to mean that either infantry would be generally fighting unarmoured (like in Ireland) or that the King would provide armor for part or all his foot. Evidence in favor of the former could be the fact that the Iberian Peninsula kept weapons long abandoned elsewhere, like slings, darts and javelins; evidence for the later could be that Royal Arsenals in Lisbon seem to have been considerable even for weapons not used by the Portuguese themselves; at least in 1571, Cardinal Alexandrino's report to Pius V describes the Arsenal as this:
| Quote: |
| "On monday we visited the Arsenal or Armaria del Rey, near the main square at the Tejo riverside. It's in fact worth of amazement. It's composed of three great rooms, all full. The cuirasses there are for 50 thousand men. In the other above there are spear for the same, in another morrions and arquebuses for an equal number of soldiers (the Portuguese say there are for 80 thousand), besides 30 thousand full armors for cavalry. Bellow there are a hundred pieces of heavy artillery and 150 of light artillery, although many of the later could be considered of great caliber. The ammunition is most abundant, as the material for making them, even in this part there's nothing to complain about."
Original: «Na segunda-feira seguinte fômos vêr o arsenal ou armaria del rey, pegado com a praça principal à beira do Tejo. Na verdade é cousa digna de espanto. Compõe-se de três grandes salas tôdas cheias. Os cossoletes que ahy há são para cinqüenta mil homens. Noutra que fica por cima estão lanças para outros tantos; & noutra morriões & arcabuzes para igüal número de soldados (os portuguêzes dizem que são para cima de oitenta mil), além de trinta mil armaduras ynteiras para cavallarya. Em baixo estão cem peças de artilharia grossa & cento & cinqüenta de artilharia miúda, bem que muytas destas se podiam contar êntre as de grande calibre. As munições são abundantíssimas, asy como os materiais para a fabricação; nem nesta parte há mais que desejar.» |
A Historian I know said perhaps we could cut the quantities here by half, in case the Cardinal or the officers that assisted him were exaggerating. Even still, it brings the question of when the Royal Arsenal increased so much, and how it would look by the Late Middle Ages.
| Quote: |
| Mattäus seems to have owned multiple harness, but he was a wealthy man as an accountant for the Fugger family. |
But armor wasn't like, a third of the price of a knight's fief? I'm considering £15 the minimum for an English knight and a full harness being £5-8.33 (source: https://armstreet.com/news/the-cost-of-plate-armor-in-modern-money#:~:text=Now%2C%20this%20means%20that%20depending,%248%2C000%20to%20%2440%2C000%20or%20more.)
| Quote: |
| In France in particular they had a lot of trouble trying to raise infantry from their own burghers and (especially) peasants, such as with the Francs Archers finding that it led to social disruptions (uppity peasants, basically) and the troops were neither reliable or effective. Ultimately France disarmed the Francs Archers (more than once) and ended up relying on expensive Swiss Mercenaries for infantry. |
I thought that earlier the French abandoned the adoption of the longbow because it caused civil unrest, later coming back with the Francs Archers. Do you think we can expand the stereotype of Francs Archers being ineffective to all native French foot in general? An argument posed in George Gush' Renassaince Armies, if I'm not mistaken, was that the French started using mercenaries in a larger scale because it was cost-effective (the people would be kept working so no economical problem).
I wouldn't put France as a more centralized State than England or any Iberian Kingdom, at least not before the end of HYW. Portuguese historians generally argue Portugal was among the most centralized States of Late Middle Ages; e.g. Portuguese nobles couldn't own or live in castles, all castles were Royal property administered by small nobles appointed by the King, and the only fortified manor I know of is basically from a family closely related to the ruling dinasty.
On the besteiros, there was an court office named anadel-mor who controlled other anadéis responsible for each division of crossbowmen in the Kingdom (Besteiros do Conto, da Câmara, Montados etc). It was actually a very bureaucratic thing, and some surviving docs generally related to the King dealing with stuff like: the Plague depopulated Lisbon, so they couldn't fill the quota of Besteiros do Conto, a local officer required the local corps of Besteiros do Conto to change their crossbows for another drawing type, and those who refused were arrested (the King then ordered them to be freed and to not be disturbed to change the crossbows they already own). They were to be drawn from the artisans because the King didn't want peasants to be crossbowmen as a famine might happen because there were few people working in the fields (btw the Plague hit Portugal from 1,5m to 0,75m, 50% of the people died and it doesn't seem they recovered in the same pace as elsewhere). The only thing I have to check is whether a volunteer should bring his own crossbow or if the Royal Arsenal would send crossbows to new besteiros do conto. On autonomy, from what I understood the King gave some municipalities many freedoms on exchange of obligations to the Crown; something like "you work directly for the Crown and we get rid of nobility and bishop's authority for you".
| Quote: |
| I'd really like to see the primary source for that. [...]Not all Swiss warriors were recruited directly from towns though, towns like Bern had a substantial hinterland from which they recruited soldiers, some of them fairly poor peasants, and they also brought them in from other districts like the Vaud. So it's possible the rules were different for some of the rural troops. All I can say for sure is that the town militias did have routine inspections and they were fairly strict about it. |
I know the Reformation caused a problem between Forest and City Cantons as Zwingli wasn't in favor of mercenary activity and this was an important source of revenue for Forest Cantons, who were dependent on farming (and I can bet they struggled with the soil and food supply) and were poorer. Perhaps this mention of a poorly equipped army refers to a Forest Canton militia? By the way, I know the Confederacy also had a distinction between its volunteer mercenary army and militiamen, the former would be better equipped for many reasons. Also, almost out of the context, Landsknechts were as armoured as the Swiss or were less armoured?[/quote]
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
|
But it wouldn't exist variation of demand between poorer German cities and more affluent ones? I could think of Southern Germany being particularly poor and war-torn by this era; or perhaps that would be specific to the countryside. |
I'm not sure which period you mean, but if you are referring to the mid-15th Century when the battle of St. Jakob an der Birs and the activity in Fribourg mentioned in the OP, then no I would not say there are so many poor towns in Southern Germany, in fact very much to the contrary. The towns were very wealthy due to the growth of textile, metalworking and various other industries. So wealthy in fact that they were routinely conquering the local nobles and were beginning to even challenge the princes.
By the 16th Century the wealthier merchants in the South-German towns in particular were routinely lending money to all the princes including the Emperor. The Fuggers lent the money which got Charles V / Carl V elected. Another Augsburg merchant family, the Welsers, was even given Venezuela as a pawn on a loan, and sent an expedition there.
It's a crazy story somebody needs to make a screenplay about one day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Venedig
However I would say by the time of the Schmalkaldic Wars (1546-52) and the other wars of religion after that, the region of Swabia and many others around Central Europe were badly effected and economically declined at least somewhat, and though relatively few were conquered during the 30 Years War of the 17th Century, many of these places did suffer economically and demographically (populations shrunk due to plague and famine and so on).
However that said, based on numbers published by Ann Tlusty in her Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany, most citizens in Augsburg owned armor in the 16th Century. By the 17th Century that ratio had declined (by then armor use in general was declining everywhere).
| Quote: |
|
In the Ordinance of Burgos, the King of Castile do lighten the demands in the southern part of his kingdom, so at a specific amount of money you would be required to be a man-at-arms in Castille, but you could be a light cavalry jinete on the south owning the same amount of wealth. I'm interpreting the absence of armor in surviving Iberian Ordinances to mean that either infantry would be generally fighting unarmoured (like in Ireland) or that the King would provide armor for part or all his foot. Evidence in favor of the former could be the fact that the Iberian Peninsula kept weapons long abandoned elsewhere, like slings, darts and javelins; evidence for the later could be that Royal Arsenals in Lisbon seem to have been considerable even for weapons not used by the Portuguese themselves; at least in 1571, Cardinal Alexandrino's report to Pius V describes the Arsenal as this: A Historian I know said perhaps we could cut the quantities here by half, in case the Cardinal or the officers that assisted him were exaggerating. Even still, it brings the question of when the Royal Arsenal increased so much, and how it would look by the Late Middle Ages. |
I'll take your word for it. Maybe the King had all the armor in medieval Portugal. As I said before, in other parts of Europe like Central Europe and Italy, part of the laws and regulations about this, and some of the equipment, would be the responsibility of the town, some the guilds, and some of the individual.
| Quote: |
|
I thought that earlier the French abandoned the adoption of the longbow because it caused civil unrest, later coming back with the Francs Archers. Do you think we can expand the stereotype of Francs Archers being ineffective to all native French foot in general? |
It's not so much that they were inherently ineffective, but the French nobility and monarchy wasn't able to effectively work with them, I think partly due to their own attitude toward commoners, especially their own.
| Quote: |
|
I wouldn't put France as a more centralized State than England or any Iberian Kingdom, at least not before the end of HYW. Portuguese historians generally argue Portugal was among the most centralized States of Late Middle Ages; e.g. Portuguese nobles couldn't own or live in castles, all castles were Royal property administered by small nobles appointed by the King, and the only fortified manor I know of is basically from a family closely related to the ruling dinasty. |
I wouldn't necessarily say that France was more centralized, what i said specifically was that in France, "the monarchy was very dominant over the lower estates". I chose my words carefully. The French kings had a lot of trouble with their princely ranked nobles right up to the reign of Louis XIV. But in France, commoners did not have the kind of legal rights, autonomy, or martial traditions as in other areas. Or martial equipment like armor and crossbows. The same is true for England though to a lesser extent as some burghers in places like York and London had some rights, and you also had the yeomen farmers and so on.
| Quote: |
| On the besteiros, there was an court office named anadel-mor who controlled other anadéis responsible for each division of crossbowmen in the Kingdom (Besteiros do Conto, da Câmara, Montados etc). It was actually a very bureaucratic thing, and some surviving docs generally related to the King dealing with stuff like: the Plague depopulated Lisbon, so they couldn't fill the quota of Besteiros do Conto, a local officer required the local corps of Besteiros do Conto to change their crossbows for another drawing type, and those who refused were arrested (the King then ordered them to be freed and to not be disturbed to change the crossbows they already own). They were to be drawn from the artisans because the King didn't want peasants to be crossbowmen as a famine might happen because there were few people working in the fields (btw the Plague hit Portugal from 1,5m to 0,75m, 50% of the people died and it doesn't seem they recovered in the same pace as elsewhere). The only thing I have to check is whether a volunteer should bring his own crossbow or if the Royal Arsenal would send crossbows to new besteiros do conto. On autonomy, from what I understood the King gave some municipalities many freedoms on exchange of obligations to the Crown; something like "you work directly for the Crown and we get rid of nobility and bishop's authority for you". |
Yes I read that, as well, but I'm not sure about the town authority that might overlap, in Central Europe there was always both, but I'll take your word for it regardless.
| Quote: |
|
I know the Reformation caused a problem between Forest and City Cantons as Zwingli wasn't in favor of mercenary activity and this was an important source of revenue for Forest Cantons, who were dependent on farming (and I can bet they struggled with the soil and food supply) and were poorer. Perhaps this mention of a poorly equipped army refers to a Forest Canton militia? By the way, I know the Confederacy also had a distinction between its volunteer mercenary army and militiamen, the former would be better equipped for many reasons. Also, almost out of the context, Landsknechts were as armoured as the Swiss or were less armoured? |
Well Zwingli was not active in the Reformation until about 80 years after the battle of St. Jacob an der Birs so probably not that much influence.
Switzerland was in general a poorer area than a lot of the rest of the Holy Roman Empire. When the Grey League were fighting for independence and to join the Swiss Confederation in the 15th Century, they got the name due to their undyed gray clothing. But the leading Swiss towns like Bern, Zurich, Lucerne, Uri, Zug etc., while small compared to many in the region, seemed to mostly be fairly prosperous.
Another interesting entry about 15th Century urban militias in the same area on the Martial Culture in medieval towns blog today
https://martcult.hypotheses.org/2020
https://martcult.hypotheses.org/2020
Before adressing your questions, I had one: is there a reason for brigandines and padded armor not appearing in Swiss artistic evidence? Even the illustrators like Osprey completely avoid depicting Swiss with these gear, and it seems odd since they would be more acessible than mail or plate (armor not in stock in that article of yours). Since you have studied the documents better than anyone else I could know, you would better fitted to answer.
On the Battle of St. Jakobs: one of the primary sources seems to be Pope Pius II, Ian Heath quotes him also talking about Albanian gear (and the fact they rarely or didn't use armor; and that they weren't fitted to engage Italian heavy cavalry in sword combat, etc), perhaps he might be an evidence for that; he used to be a soldier before being Pope, then perhaps we should take that in consideration as well. Do you happen to have his military commentaries?
On the Battle of St. Jakobs: one of the primary sources seems to be Pope Pius II, Ian Heath quotes him also talking about Albanian gear (and the fact they rarely or didn't use armor; and that they weren't fitted to engage Italian heavy cavalry in sword combat, etc), perhaps he might be an evidence for that; he used to be a soldier before being Pope, then perhaps we should take that in consideration as well. Do you happen to have his military commentaries?
Pedro, given your interest in urban military equipment, just checking that you are aware of this article on Swiss arms in 15th century?
Regula Schmid : The armour of the common soldier in the late middle ages.
Harnischrödel as sources for the history of urban martial culture
https://boris.unibe.ch/111318/1/Schmid_Armour.pdf
It gives the other side of the coin to central weapon distribution - official regulation of the kit citizens were expected to own themselves.
Regula Schmid : The armour of the common soldier in the late middle ages.
Harnischrödel as sources for the history of urban martial culture
https://boris.unibe.ch/111318/1/Schmid_Armour.pdf
It gives the other side of the coin to central weapon distribution - official regulation of the kit citizens were expected to own themselves.
| Quote: |
| For example in the article I posted in the OP in this thread, it notes that according to the war-tax levied in Fribourg in 1445, 71% of the town (2,256 households out of 3,150) owned between 25 marks and 1,000 marks in taxable wealth, whereas only 22% (704 households) had less than 25 marks of wealth. It seems to have largely (though not exclusively) been these poorer people who were issued crossbows. A military grade crossbow at that time cost about 1 mark. |
You should be careful in taking the income data exactly as it is. For example, in Italy we find really different situations: in Volterra in the thirteenth century the properties were valued only by 20% for taxation purposes, in Chieri's land registry of 1253 (it is the oldest surviving in Italy) it seems that lands were valued for the 2/3 of their value, houses for 1/3, movable properties entirely, minus the debt, in Venice during the 14th century the coefficient for identifying taxable assets based on movable and immovable property had changed several times.
The Regula Schmid article is an extremely useful resource and I certainly can't do better than that.
I will note a couple of things however.
1) Inventories such as used in the article linked above are often either tantalizingly just above the level of detail we want, or are using period terms which we can't quite translate or be sure of.
2) Armor used i militias (as Dr Schmid notes in the article) seems to often remain in the family or more specifically, the household, sometimes for numerous generations. I think this is why we see so much mail particularly in the Swiss records (and art). Mail was actually more expensive than a mid-grade (plate) half armor, mainly because it was more labor intensive. And it may not have been as effective against certain weapons like firearms. But it's still pretty good protection and if you had a mail byrnie and take care of it, it could last a long time.
3) This may mean that armor tended to get better over time, meaning families which have been in town for a while, will tend to have pretty good armor, as good as they want to have. I.e. if you spread the cost over 3-4 generations it's very affordable given the income they had.
4) For the Swiss specifically, keep in mind they had been successful in many battles so they also get to keep what they capture as loot, which would often include armor.
I have however in some records from north-east Europe seen references to the use of 'coat of plates' type armor in militia regulations, specifically something called a "Platendeinst" - (maybe armor for a dienstmann?), was deemed the lower level of acceptability. It was mentioned that in one case in an inspection the cloth was rotted and the plates were rusty. To me that sounds like some kind of coat of plates.
They do also seem to appear sometimes in the art of the Swiss Chronicles, for example note the attached image. Can't be sure that's what it is, and the images are usually drawn in a kind of 'cartoony' style, often with repetitive elements.
I personally doubt that coat of plates armor would be particularly rare in the Swiss area or nearby German-speaking or Italian areas etc. it's just that mail or plate armor are just easier to recognize as such, both because of technical terms and / or artwork. Terms like 'panzer' may well actually include references to some kind of coat of plates or brigandine type armor.
Attachment: 133.24 KB
Attachment: 418.1 KB
[ Download ]
I will note a couple of things however.
1) Inventories such as used in the article linked above are often either tantalizingly just above the level of detail we want, or are using period terms which we can't quite translate or be sure of.
2) Armor used i militias (as Dr Schmid notes in the article) seems to often remain in the family or more specifically, the household, sometimes for numerous generations. I think this is why we see so much mail particularly in the Swiss records (and art). Mail was actually more expensive than a mid-grade (plate) half armor, mainly because it was more labor intensive. And it may not have been as effective against certain weapons like firearms. But it's still pretty good protection and if you had a mail byrnie and take care of it, it could last a long time.
3) This may mean that armor tended to get better over time, meaning families which have been in town for a while, will tend to have pretty good armor, as good as they want to have. I.e. if you spread the cost over 3-4 generations it's very affordable given the income they had.
4) For the Swiss specifically, keep in mind they had been successful in many battles so they also get to keep what they capture as loot, which would often include armor.
I have however in some records from north-east Europe seen references to the use of 'coat of plates' type armor in militia regulations, specifically something called a "Platendeinst" - (maybe armor for a dienstmann?), was deemed the lower level of acceptability. It was mentioned that in one case in an inspection the cloth was rotted and the plates were rusty. To me that sounds like some kind of coat of plates.
They do also seem to appear sometimes in the art of the Swiss Chronicles, for example note the attached image. Can't be sure that's what it is, and the images are usually drawn in a kind of 'cartoony' style, often with repetitive elements.
I personally doubt that coat of plates armor would be particularly rare in the Swiss area or nearby German-speaking or Italian areas etc. it's just that mail or plate armor are just easier to recognize as such, both because of technical terms and / or artwork. Terms like 'panzer' may well actually include references to some kind of coat of plates or brigandine type armor.
Attachment: 133.24 KB Attachment: 418.1 KB[ Download ]
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Fri 26 Aug, 2022 12:37 pm; edited 4 times in total
| F. Rodel wrote: | ||
You should be careful in taking the income data exactly as it is. For example, in Italy we find really different situations: in Volterra in the thirteenth century the properties were valued only by 20% for taxation purposes, in Chieri's land registry of 1253 (it is the oldest surviving in Italy) it seems that lands were valued for the 2/3 of their value, houses for 1/3, movable properties entirely, minus the debt, in Venice during the 14th century the coefficient for identifying taxable assets based on movable and immovable property had changed several times. |
Good point. But per the point of my post there, if this were true it would not seem to make the citizens any poorer.
On the contrary, the citizens were much richer than it seems from the land/properties registers. For example, I am doing a research on a town in northeastern Italy in the fourteenth century (where, moreover, there is a truly unique document: we have a list of about 80 citizens with the precise defensive and offensive weapons they must have): people who appear to have 30-32 marchae of income annually (redditum), actually have revenue for over 200 marchae. Thanks to this, we can see that the taxes imposed annually could exceed what was declared as totally income (the same thing also happens in Venice). There is also another thing to add that perhaps explains the lack or partiality of city regulations on weapons imposed: probably this was a duty of neighborhoods or of other minor administrative subdivisions (in Italy waite / guaite, vicinie, contrade, cappelle...).
I came across this this afternoon, which I thought had interesting parallels with the Swiss material
Leandro Ferreira &
Martin Neuding Skoog : Crossbowmen in late medieval Portugal and Sweden. A comparison
As a bonus for Jean Henri, it mentions the use of poison by the Portugese militia on p.40. :)
Leandro Ferreira &
Martin Neuding Skoog : Crossbowmen in late medieval Portugal and Sweden. A comparison
As a bonus for Jean Henri, it mentions the use of poison by the Portugese militia on p.40. :)
| F. Rodel wrote: |
| On the contrary, the citizens were much richer than it seems from the land/properties registers. For example, I am doing a research on a town in northeastern Italy in the fourteenth century (where, moreover, there is a truly unique document: we have a list of about 80 citizens with the precise defensive and offensive weapons they must have): people who appear to have 30-32 marchae of income annually (redditum), actually have revenue for over 200 marchae. |
Marchae = Mark / Lira / Lb?
| Quote: |
|
Thanks to this, we can see that the taxes imposed annually could exceed what was declared as totally income (the same thing also happens in Venice). There is also another thing to add that perhaps explains the lack or partiality of city regulations on weapons imposed: probably this was a duty of neighborhoods or of other minor administrative subdivisions (in Italy waite / guaite, vicinie, contrade, cappelle...). |
Yes in the German speaking towns this would often be by gassen (lane or street) / viertel (quarter), or by the craft organization or guild. Additional arms were often kept in the gate tower, which in turn were controlled by the nearby craft guild or sometimes by a patrician family. For example in Krakow the St. Florian's Gate tower was controlled by the prominent furrier's guild, the carpenter's, joiner's and lace maker's towers by their respective crafts. They contained crossbows, armor, polearms, and later some firearms and cannon, and these were the site of muster for the militia and also where the people from the local neighborhood reported for town watch duty. They also kept some records in there. Same in Rostock, Wismar, Danzig, Torun and several other towns in that region.
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
| I came across this this afternoon, which I thought had interesting parallels with the Swiss material
Leandro Ferreira & Martin Neuding Skoog : Crossbowmen in late medieval Portugal and Sweden. A comparison As a bonus for Jean Henri, it mentions the use of poison by the Portugese militia on p.40. :) |
Yeah I posted that about two weeks ago in the poison weapon thread...
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
|
Yeah I posted that about two weeks ago in the poison weapon thread... |
Whoops, I suppose I've now given away that I stopped reading it some time ago. Apologies. However, still has some relevant things to say about comparative militia organisation, I feel.
Page 1 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum