hey i was wondering what kind of weapons english foot soldiers were using from around 1250-1350? i'm talking about men who fought hand to hand and not archers. i read a book that said at the time of the battle of Bannockburn (1314) the average english grunt used a bill. but then today i read one that said that they were equiped with a spear. whats up with that? so dose any body know what was in use? :confused:

I'd say spears. Artwork until the end of the period is full of them. I'd be surprised if bills were the weapon of the English infantry at this time.

RPM

The problem we have is with the definitions used in contemporary manuscripts. Before dictionaries the writers of the time would use whichever word they thought best, and depending on the individual this could even be different words for the same piece of equipment varying even in the same manuscript.

During the 1400s the word "bill" would be used for most things from spears to full on halberd type cutty-pokey things. With the period you are talking about, we're looking at axes and spears for "basic footsoldiers". When talking about the english however, I would suggest any footsoldier worth his pay would be proficient with a bow as well.

Hope this helps.

Zac

I should think whatever the footman could afford is what he would carry. A spear or a pole weapon is common but also a heavy dagger or arming sword also. Axes, Falchions meat clevers and any kind of farm tool that could be converted to a weapon would also show up. Remember that most were reluctant peasant levies with the exception of the Swiss who often fought as volunteer mercenaries for pay throughout Europe.
He would also, if he survived his first fight, would pick up whatever he could find on the battlefield to suppliment his armour and tools as best he could. Footmen were called into arms by the Lord and he brought with him what he had at the time. From about 1350 onwards even the knights themselves usually dismounted for battle, becoming super-heavy infantry themselves, as a countermeasure to development of massed archery tactics which would bring their horses down. This led to development of combined arms tactics of archery and dismounted knights.

[ Linked Image ]

what would have been the most common polearms? :?:

Steven has it. By 1250-1350 no forced levies were used in England abroad. I think one issue with the idea of poorly armed and disciplines peasant levies is the concept. We think of being forced into war as a bad thing. They saw it as just another obligation to the king, like taxes, customs etc.

As Steven said they also were required by wealth to own a specific amount of war goods.-
Here is a 1345 example. Sorry it is not earlier but it follows the same pattern.

‘has ordained that all men holding a lay fee shall be assessed to arms as follows, he who has land of the value of l00s. yearly shall be an archer and mounted. He who has land of the value of £10 yearly shall be a hobeler, armed at the least with a haqueton, a visor, a burnished palet, iron gauntlets and a lance (cum aketona pisario, paletto burnito, cirotecis ferreis et lancea). He who has land of the value of £25 yearly shall be a man at arms. He who has land of the value of £50 yearly shall have with him one other man at arms. He who has land of the value of £100 yearly shall have with him three men at arms. He who has beyond that amount shall be assessed at more men at arms proportionally: to give effect to such ordinance he has appointed William de Clynton, earl of Huntingdon, and those whom he shall depute, to inform himself by such ways and means as shall be expedient of the names of those who have such land of the yearly values enumerated, up to £1,000. yearly or more, after deducting all necessary services and reprises, in the county of Kent, and to arrest and imprison all those whom he shall find oppose him in the premises, also to certify by Midlent Sunday next, or on that day at the latest of all that lie does herein.’

Patent Rolls of Edward II 1343-1345, p. 427

By Edward I's reign they use the commission of array. One reason he did this was to avoid using the old traditional levy as men would often not be well armed, time and other limitations also were an issue. Just like the feudal summons for knights, one reason indenture takes over. The commission allowed for the best of a group to be used for war making perhaps smaller, but better forces.

The general levy all males 16-60 is still at times used but only for home defence. Though by law they still were to be armed and armoured to wealth for this service as well so the torch and pitchfork ideal of unstable and useless infantry is still not a fair one for them. Here in Southampton Aldermen viewed their wards once a month to enforce the king's peace. Part of this being to make sure they had the military gear of their social station. If they were not up to the level they'd be fined and required to get it.

RPM

Randall-

What unit of currency is 'l.' as in the hobeler worht 10 l.? And how does it compare to the other currency?

Also, am I understanding the hobelers equipment correctly as:
Aketon, open helmet, breastplate, gauntlets and spear

Thanks for the specifics,
Steven

Steven,

Sorry that should be the stylized L (£) for pound in Latin. I did not notice the formatting did not carry over from my computer to the post. A few of them for some reason are like that... It is in increments of £5. £5 for mounted archers, £10 hobelar and £25 man-at-arms. I think it interesting that men had to provide extra men at arms per extra £25 they possessed.

That is correct for the hobelar equipment. I am beginning to think that the hobelar was not just a mounted man who would dismount for some forms of warfare but that he might be used mounted as well. I have only seen works indicate a type of mounted infantryman for hobelars but this and other articles indicate something perhaps that did both.

Glad it was helpful. I have all sorts of odd bits like this. I read through all the Patent and Close Rolls last year... :D

RPM

yeahbut what kind of polearms did they use :?:

Joseph,

It is written in there. The only pole weapon listed. A spear.

RPM

This picture is 15th century, mid to late I would say. Nothing to do with your question really. In 13th and 14th century most probable choise is a spear, or maybe long two handed axe for someone better armed and without a shield.

yeah but weren't guisarmes, glaives, ahlespiesses, and mauls in use (not sure what exactly those last to are)? :confused:

It comes down to this. Your question seemed to imply what weapon of the pole/shafted variety they'd use. Most commonly well into the 14th is the spear. There are of course other weapons around but the spear is the one that in accounts and artwork show up the most. It is not limited to infantry. Men at arms also used them. In fact as the 14th goes on they are often called spears of bascinets. Likely to do with an almost universal weapon in use.

You can find other weapons. Axes, the earliest halbard in existance is from about 1310-1315 but they existed earlier. They existed but were not likely the weapon that was most common of the infantry man. They used all sorts of weapons at times but that does nto mean they were more common than the spear.

One thing is likely though, the fully developed bill and halbard were not around and the pike or long spear was just getting rolling. The Scots used long spears but I think they are assumed to be around 12 feet or less by Bannockburn.

The picture you put up is easily 1480s or later. You can tell by their armour and the fact it shows W of the Roses arms indicates at least 1460s, though as I said the armour is likely 20 years later.

RPM

We also must consider the artist may have used artistic licence. Just because he is depicting another time does not mean he won't use more modern armour in his art.

The artist looks like under heavy influence of Medieval Soldier book. Especially the man at arms looks like copied almost directly form a photo there, and given a horse form another photo showing horse armour. Obviously late 15th C.

Another issue arguing for better equipped troops and less peasant levies would be supplying such a force on the march or paying for their support and transport overseas. If you levied a massive force you had to really scrape up a lot to feed them, and on the march the army would be limited to what they could forage along the way for most of their food.

Logistics always limit what you can do with an army.