I just finished reading The Soldier in Later Medieval England, and noticed it doesn’t say much about spearmen or billmen. They seem to fall under the category of man at arms and paid the same amount as mounted men at arms and seem to be rather rare. They would have also been paid more than archers, who are supposed to be specialists. Does anyone know more about unmounted men at arms during the HYW? It seems like the difference between a spearman and a knight isn´t that big.
Hi Ryan,
I'm not sure if this will help, since it has been a while since I watched it, but it might help!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsYzRWcVv8
Take care,
Dan
I'm not sure if this will help, since it has been a while since I watched it, but it might help!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsYzRWcVv8
Take care,
Dan
| Ryan S. wrote: |
| I just finished reading The Soldier in Later Medieval England, and noticed it doesn’t say much about spearmen or billmen. They seem to fall under the category of man at arms and paid the same amount as mounted men at arms and seem to be rather rare. They would have also been paid more than archers, who are supposed to be specialists. Does anyone know more about unmounted men at arms during the HYW? It seems like the difference between a spearman and a knight isn´t that big. |
There are some good old posts about it, but I would need some time to find them.
So, first of all: the first reference for billmen being used by English in continent, according to historiography (if I'm not mistaken) was the Battle of Formigny's campaign in 1450. And they were there by the thousands and as a distinct and homogenous group.
To adress your question we should at first breakdown some things about Late Medieval English Military: the traditional, feudal form of recruitment was eventually abandoned for the Wars in France. For a number of reasons: feudal recruitment was forcing an obbligation on people for 40-days unpaid fighting, lots could be argued about morale or quality of these soldiers, but the main issue was the fact that feudal soldiery tended to want wars to be over quickly and would be more prone to desertion (after all they had to attend to their original occupations).
England instead chose a system that's essentialy a mercenary one. The Crown would delegate captains to go for specific places to find a quota of soldiers to recruit for paid service with an indentured contract specifying conditions of service for both sides. Places like England could form a whole army of identured soldiers from specific counties and leave others untouched (reason why, at Flodden Field, the Scots were taken by surprised when Northern England managed to build a whole army even after Henry VIII dispached a previous one to France, knowing the Scots could invade the border he recruited the former from southern counties).
Most captains were earls, barons and knights (sometimes we see squires as captains), and since the Crown and the higher nobles were willing to play their part on these efforts, this mercenary service was different from the contemporary mercenary service, i.e. hiring actual companies of mercenaries who, since they were full-time soldiers, had to fight constantly or turn brigand to make a living.
Medieval writters make an apology to show how this system was not really a mercenary/condotierro service pointing to stuff like honor, duty and tradition. I find, however, difficult to distinguish it from the Portuguese Crown recruitments in English domains: the "english mercenaries" recruited in Gascony had many locals and it's mentioned, as the most outplaced individual, a Floretine men-at-arms; the Castilian side had many French mercenaries, all from the Spanish border domains, but given many knights and small lords were present it was a mercenary service likely formed out of a traditional feudal pool.
The tendency we see in English armies through the 14th century is shift for smaller, indentured/paid troops. I suspect that's the reason why Welshmen pretty much disappeared from these sources: since they didnt have armor and there were plenty of English archers, it became obvious to have English archers with minimal armor rather than unarmoured Welsh ones.The English also realized it was easier having men-at-arms to fight as meele infantrymen rather than hiring actual foot soldiers wearing lighter armor, which would not perform as effectively as a corps of fully armoured troops.
The return to actual foot soldiers returning to action in occassions such as Formigny seens to point that, during the late stages for the 100YW, the English Parliament didnt have the fund, interest or the human material to employ the classic archer-MAA dual style. The War of Roses, however, was waged mostly through feudal system, as it was a civil war and there wasnt that investment for an international adventure, we also see Welshmen returning in numbers in wars (though by this time they seem to have the same equipment level of Englishmen), and also the employment of Irishmen (these were unarmoured).
A couple of points.
If you look at the Soldier in Later medieval England, you'll see English garrison troops had both mounted and foot "lances". Lance in English use at the time meant man-at-arms (unlike the multi-person continental style). Other than the lack of a horse, there doesn't seem much between them - men could move between the classes. These are probably not the later armies billmen, however. There doesn't seem to be a class of soldier recruited as a billman. It's possible they were men who had been recruited under the archer category (assuming this was a pay class, not a fighting one, as suggested by David Grummitt).
As to mercenaries, this seems to have been a non-English view. Men serving their own monarch for pay weren't thought of as mercenaries by the English, it seems. Mercenaries fought for a monarch not their own.
If you look at the Soldier in Later medieval England, you'll see English garrison troops had both mounted and foot "lances". Lance in English use at the time meant man-at-arms (unlike the multi-person continental style). Other than the lack of a horse, there doesn't seem much between them - men could move between the classes. These are probably not the later armies billmen, however. There doesn't seem to be a class of soldier recruited as a billman. It's possible they were men who had been recruited under the archer category (assuming this was a pay class, not a fighting one, as suggested by David Grummitt).
As to mercenaries, this seems to have been a non-English view. Men serving their own monarch for pay weren't thought of as mercenaries by the English, it seems. Mercenaries fought for a monarch not their own.
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
| As to mercenaries, this seems to have been a non-English view. Men serving their own monarch for pay weren't thought of as mercenaries by the English, it seems. Mercenaries fought for a monarch not their own. |
I wont criticize as you refferred to an English perspective, but in many places you had native companies of mercenaries, such as in France and Italy (coincidentally the regions with the highest demografic concentration of Catholic Europe). George Gush in his Renaissance Armies mentioned the French Military doctrine became one of "national mercenary army", which they thought to be usefull because they wouldnt take peasants and tradesmen from their posts, thus not harming the economy. The Landsknecht recruitments also had a number of German university students seeking adventure and wealth
France had a number of mercenary companies composed of Frenchmen, such as the Ecorcheurs (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89corcheurs) which were native and turn criminal due to lack of action. The King of France managed to drive mercenaries turn brigand by using them in an invasion of Switzerland (cant found now which, but it's even depicted in Swiss Chronicles) and later by recruiting them into the new standing army.
I guess England didn't have an issue of Free Companies because both of the population surplus of the before mentioned regions and because they were always up to some military activity.
| Quote: |
| If you look at the Soldier in Later medieval England, you'll see English garrison troops had both mounted and foot "lances". Lance in English use at the time meant man-at-arms (unlike the multi-person continental style). |
I always had a particularly interest in the possessions of "foot lances". In France and in Iberia a lance was a name for a men-at-arms, but I wonder if foot lances had war horses (if I remember correctly there were was a 3-rank system for war horse quality), and sources in 15th century Portugal specify that men-at-arms were willing to buy a whole new set of plate armor rather than owning a war horse (the reformation specified they should own 2 sets, the extra to be given to someone else, and the King would provide the horses).
| Quote: |
| Other than the lack of a horse, there doesn't seem much between them - men could move between the classes. |
Depends: a foot soldier could only raise to men-at-arms status if he had the equipment. One of regulations seen in Lisboa e a Guerra deals specifically with the question that some aquantiados crossbowmen had enough wealth or equipment to be into men-at-arms rank (not knighthood), and the King clarified they could, if they wished so.
MAA and heavily armoured infantry received higher pay and had to afford the cost of a page to dress them (Hungarian and Polish fully armoured infantry in late 15th century received double pay and had pages).
| Quote: |
| These are probably not the later armies billmen, however. There doesn't seem to be a class of soldier recruited as a billman. It's possible they were men who had been recruited under the archer category (assuming this was a pay class, not a fighting one, as suggested by David Grummitt). |
Doubtfull: less armoured meele foot wouldnt see action in the French campaigns they were not mentioned, because the men-at-arms would be already doing their job. The French on the other hand hired MAA and normal foot for campaigns such as Agincourt, only to end up having the normal foot to watch while the MAA and the knights were doing all the fighting (and losing). In Aljubarrota the number of figthers in the Castilian side were almost the same as the Portuguese one, because the rest of men simply decided it was not worth to keep fighting a lost battle. In Nicopolis only the French MAA fought, and so on.
Ryan's original question was about 15th century English in France, so that's where I was focused. Reading The Soldier in Later Medieval England, you will certainly find archers becoming men-at-arms, and foot lances becoming mounted ones and vice versa. Yes, you needed the right kit but it was possible to get it. We might, incidentally, note that Anglo-Gascon armies included local infantry (spearmen and crossbows), enabling the English to mainly focus on supplying men-at-arms and archers.
| Dan Kary wrote: |
| Hi Ryan,
I'm not sure if this will help, since it has been a while since I watched it, but it might help! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsYzRWcVv8 Take care, Dan |
Thanks this helps in that in contrasts a lot with what is said in The Soldier in Later Medieval England which is probably due to the new research presented in the book. The most relevant part of the video to my question is the spearmen. Easton put the spearmen as the lowest group, followed by foot archers. These low ranking spearmen don’t seem to be used in France and foot archers paid the same as mounted archers were the exception, used mostly in garrisons or at sea.
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
| A couple of points.
If you look at the Soldier in Later medieval England, you'll see English garrison troops had both mounted and foot "lances". Lance in English use at the time meant man-at-arms (unlike the multi-person continental style). Other than the lack of a horse, there doesn't seem much between them - men could move between the classes. These are probably not the later armies billmen, however. There doesn't seem to be a class of soldier recruited as a billman. It's possible they were men who had been recruited under the archer category (assuming this was a pay class, not a fighting one, as suggested by David Grummitt). As to mercenaries, this seems to have been a non-English view. Men serving their own monarch for pay weren't thought of as mercenaries by the English, it seems. Mercenaries fought for a monarch not their own. |
So if there were spearmen in a battle, then they were either mounted men-at-arms fighting on foot, or "archers" fighting with a spear?
| Quote: |
| So if there were spearmen in a battle, then they were either mounted men-at-arms fighting on foot, or "archers" fighting with a spear? |
Other than the Gascons previously mentioned, I don't think the English used spears on foot in 15th century France. The prefered weapon of the English man-at-arms was the pollaxe. They had used lances on foot at times in the 14th century.
The only mention of a common weapon in 15th century French war is to "bills" at Formingny. Though, as these are in a French source, they are actually called guisarmes. French and Breton ordnances in the mid-15th century allow for guisarme or voulge armed foot soldiers, so we are probably dealing with vague medieval terminology for poleweapon rather than anything precise.
As to front line use of spears by English local forces, things are confused by the fact that "spears" in the later 15th century means mounted men-at-arms. Spears don't turn up as a weapon in militia records, though "staves" do and staff was certainly used to mean a light cavalry lance in the 16th century, so who knows?
There is a suggestion that Welsh militia forces continued to use spears - there is some mention of them in the 16th century - but I don't think I've seen a solid reference to them in the 15th century. I'd be interested if others can provide one.
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: | ||
Other than the Gascons previously mentioned, I don't think the English used spears on foot in 15th century France. The prefered weapon of the English man-at-arms was the pollaxe. They had used lances on foot at times in the 14th century. |
The dismounted English Men-at-arms in Aljubarrota (1385) were armed with both, but the way the chronicle describes, if taken literally, is as if the men-at-arms had both spear, pollaxe, longsword and dagger. Or perhaps there was a line of pollaxe MAA after the line of spears. Btw nothing is said about the length or type, but it's likely what we call today a spear, Froissart just mentions the spears had well-made Bordeaux steel.
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
| The only mention of a common weapon in 15th century French war is to "bills" at Formingny. Though, as these are in a French source, they are actually called guisarmes. French and Breton ordnances in the mid-15th century allow for guisarme or voulge armed foot soldiers, so we are probably dealing with vague medieval terminology for poleweapon rather than anything precise. |
I dont know if bill and guisarme are different weapons. In Portugal the analogue term for a bill is a bisarma or bisarme
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
| There is a suggestion that Welsh militia forces continued to use spears - there is some mention of them in the 16th century - but I don't think I've seen a solid reference to them in the 15th century. I'd be interested if others can provide one. |
Interesting thing: Welsh spears, at least some of them, were pike-length (ian Heath talks a bit in his books). Then you may associate that with the fact that a number of sources describe Scottish schiltrons as made out of spears, but we know for sure they were pike-length (even though they werent those 5-7meters pikes that appeared in Italy later.
By bet is that, when Welshmen spearmen appear in the 100YW, they would be pikemen rather than just spearmen.
| Ryan S. wrote: |
| So if there were spearmen in a battle, then they were either mounted men-at-arms fighting on foot, or "archers" fighting with a spear? |
There's no reason to think they would give archers spears. The secondary weapons archers are described using are swords, hammers, pickhammers and two handed mauls (basically because they used the mauls to put the stakes on the ground). Theorically the prescribed sidearm for an archer was the one handed sword, but they apparently accepted analogue one handed weapons.
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
| We might, incidentally, note that Anglo-Gascon armies included local infantry (spearmen and crossbows), enabling the English to mainly focus on supplying men-at-arms and archers. |
I would like to see a context where non-archers Gascons would be peaked, cause as far as I have seen (and Ian Heath quotes a number), the English were taking only men-at-arms and archers from Ireland and Gascony for the wars against the French in 1350-1450. But it's possible.
The troops the Portuguese hired in Gascony were only longbowmen and men-at-arms, those that happened to be around Bordeaux at the time, and the English auxiliar troops in D. Fernando's wars were of these two types only:
"It was the intention of the two belligerent monarchs to resolve everything in a decisive battle. In July [1382] both armies reunited in the Elvas region, and took the field near Caia river, in the border. Castile brought 'some 5000 men-at-arms, besides 1500 ginetes and many foot soldiers (with crossbowmen and archers). On their side, the Portuguese numbered near 3000 men-at-arms, a which were added many other Englishmen, a third or more (of the Englishmen) were longbowmen. For two weeks, the Castilian strong defensive position and D. Fernando hesitation for more English troops caused lack of any engagement. D. Fernando sent an emissary to England to gather more support, but received no answer. In August 10th of 1382, he signed a peace agreement with Castile without England's knowledge, and with the complains of the [English] mercenaries"
Source https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/7441/1/EXE%20INF%20425%20Ricardo%20Santos.pdf
The English MAA were later described hitting their bascinets with their pollaxes as a form of protest for not seeing any action at all. After the King didnt have the money to pay them, a number resorted to begging or robbering
| Quote: |
| I would like to see a context where non-archers Gascons would be peaked, cause as far as I have seen (and Ian Heath quotes a number), the English were taking only men-at-arms and archers from Ireland and Gascony for the wars against the French in 1350-1450. But it's possible.
|
The context would be primarily the fighting in Gascony and Guyenne. We know that local lords contributed extensively to the forces in this area. Certainly, there were plentiful foot sergeants in the 14th century. Malcolm Vale opined that these were a mix of crossbowmen and "pikemen". There were Gascon infantry at Castillion - their exact nature and number subject to debate.
Page 1 of 1
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