| Jared Smith wrote: |
| I will not refute this above information, and really appreciate your taking the time to scan it. I don't speak French or Latin, but your quote snippet appears to discuss different types of armor for different functions (archer - "padded jacks" or "coat of plates", full harness with Bascinet for the titled lord?, light cavalry (Lancer, would expect half harness or "White" Harness at this date as you mentioned before)...) Milite in your list appears relatively meaningless without the subsequent descriptor...other than being some type of soldier. |
If you are refering to the quote from Du Costume Militaire des Francais en 1446 it does indeed provide the equipment demanded of the various types of troops in a French company as establised in the ordonnace of 1445. It doesn't matter if the men-at-arms is a titled lord or not, he has to provide himself with the following if he wants to serve as one
| Quote: |
| Firstly said the men-at-arms are commonly, when they go to war, in entire white harness. That is to say close cuirass, vambraces, large garde-braces, leg harness, gauntlets, salet with visor and a small bevor which covers only the chin. Each is armed with a lance and a long light sword, a sharp dagger hanging on the left side of the saddle, and a mace
-Du Costume Militaire des Francais en 1446 |
If a man couldn’t equip himself like that he wasn’t admitted into service as a man-at-arms. Instead he had to serve as a coustillier which it is noted that poorer Burgundian esquires were forced to do in the 1470's when Charles the Bold introduced his personal version of the ordonnance army into Burgundy. Or not serve at all.
Of course the men-at-arms formed only 1/5 of the French ordonnace company but even the lesser members were well equiped by earlier standards. But indeed as I’ve written below in the 15th Century troosp became clealry divided into diffrent functions with diffrent demands for equipment. Ealier than that the tactical types in for example England and France were much less diversifiied and essentialy consisted of men-at-arms (heavy cavalry often fighting dismounted) and missle troops (archers/crossbowmen) together with much smaller amounts of other troops such as Gascon and Breton javelin men, welsh spearmen, hobilars and so on.
Regarding the question of the use of the word "milites" it is a complicated one and I'm recomending that you read Prof. Contamine's book if you want the full explaination of the work, but note what he writes:
| Quote: |
| "It is by no means certain that all those called knights or milites in the sources were true knights in the social sense of the word. (...) Frederick II, having promised the papcy that he would maintain for two years in Palestine 1,000 milites..."
-War in the Middle Ages page 68 |
| Jared Smith wrote: |
| This is circling back to what I originally claimed....my own confusion caused by terminology. If I understand you right, people were as poor at using highly precise terms back then as they are today? I don't actually get the same conclusion from what little I can guess from your quote. |
I'm not sure how to explain this in english as it isn’t my native language, i simply can’t find the right terms to explain what I mean. Perhaps the follwign attempt at an example will make what I meant clearer. In the middle ages they did use precise if not "highly precise" terms, it's just that they had more words/terms meaning the same thing. Napoleon’s army divided it's cavalry into 'Light Cavalry', 'Dragoons' and 'Heavy or Battle Cavalry'. However the regiments&soldiers making up for exampel the Heavy cavalry was called 'Cuirassiers', 'Carabiniers', 'Elite Gendarmes' and 'Horse Grenadiers', not "heavy cavalry regiments/heavy cavalrymen". 4 diffrent terms/words all denoting "heavy cavalry".
| Jared Smith wrote: |
|
Here it appears that we have vallid information, describing different composition/rank, with different types of armor, and different terms. That is what I would like, as long as it is actually true! The only impression of "heavy cavalry" I get from this is the description of Sir James Skidmore in full harness. |
Not "Sir James Skidmore", just plain James Skidmore. He was not a titled knight, if he had been one the indenture would have noted that since a knight was paid at a better rate than an ordinary men-at-arms. (I should have made this clear in my first post, apologies for missing to do that.). That the title was carefully noted can be sen from the scanned image of an actual indenture which I posted earlier, even if the orginal text is in French, the caption in English makes this clear. James Skidmore indented with a small company, himself as the man-at-arms and 6 archers in 1440 which is why you don’t see any demands for anyone else to be heavily equipped in his indenture.
Indentures and ordonnances should generaly be taken at face value since they were enforced in various ways and the troops were voluneteers. They wanted to serve and thus had an additional incetive to fullfil the obligations laid down for service. Of course there was a certain amount of defaulting and cheating invovled as in any human activity of this kind
The fullfillment of such obligations as laid down in the Statute of Winchester was a diffrent matter.
| Quote: |
|
AND Further, It is commanded, That every Man have in his house Harness for to keep the Peace after the ancient Assise; that is to say, Every Man between fifteen years of age, and sixty years, shall be assessed and sworn to Armor according to the quantity of their Lands and Goods ; that is to wit, from Fifteen Pounds Lands, and Goods Forty Marks, an Hauberke, capel de fer, a Sword, a Knife, and an Horse from Ten Pounds of Lands, and Twenty Marks Goods, an Hauberke, a Capel, a Sword, and a Knife ; and from Five Pound Lands, a Gambison, a Capel de Fer, a Sword, and a Knife ; and from Forty Shillings Land and more, unto One hundred Shillings of Land, a Sword, a Bow and Arrows, and a Knife ; and he that hath less than Forty Shillings yearly, shall be sworn to keep Gis-armes; Knives, and other less Weapons ; and he that hath less than Twenty Marks in Goods, shall have Swords, Knives, and other less Weapons ; and all other that may, shall have Bows and Arrows out of the Forest, and in the Forest Bows and Boults. Statute of Winchester, 1285 http://www.mediumaevum.com/75years/winchester1285.html |
Here service and ownership of equipment was mandatory, not voluntary and the obligatiosn were fullfilled in a much more erratic manner. The statue of Winchester is one of the first documents I’m aware of that lays down equipment in detail and connects it to a level of income. (But I’m mostly interested in the post-1340 period so additional such documents might exist)
Men valued at £20 of lands had to equip themselves as men-at-arms while men with £25 of lands had to serve as knights. I’ve not been able to find that part of the Statute online which is why I havn’t quoted it in full. The Statue was revised in 1345&1346 with updated cales on who had to serve as what but these revisiosn were thrown out by parliamnet in 1351 as unlawful and the english concentrated very muc on voluntary service from then on. Service by olbiagtion rather than by choice was ony used as a means of recruti emtn for internal conflicts or in the case of Scottish invasions. I havn’t go any such material for the French thats translated into english at the moment.
| Jared Smith wrote: |
| To my original problem....is everyone in "Heavy Cavalry" (heavier harness, higher value horses) really equipped and titled like Sir Skidmore. To be functional, it would seem they would need to be. To reconcile the quantities with the number of Nobility seems dubious. I am not a currency expert, so in terms of costs.. maybe they were. How much cavalry is heavy, and how much is light? The French seem to prefer heavy at 1300-1400 medival times, but change to light cavalry pretty quickly. If you or anyone else actually possesses knowledge of composition (light cavalry, heavy calvary, titled knights, etc.) I for one would appreciate it if all of this were not lumped togather in a term such as "milite" or simply "mounted knights". |
Equiped? Yes, probably. Titled? No and as I fogot to mention in my first post about him Sir Skidmore was just plain untitled Skidmore. Of course the Skidmore was typical of heavy cavalry of the 1440’s, outside that time frame equipment demanded of one such as him would change (full plate harness wasn’t available in the 1350’s for example)
Reliable and detailed breakdowns of the troops which made up an army are hard to find before 1400 since the documentation either was not in place or has not survived until today. So often we are left with the more or elss reliable numbers recorded by chroniclers and even when these provide numbers that are realistic in size and composition they might still be wrong. For example the ”Gesta Henrici Quinti” is one of the major sources of the battle of Agincourt and it records that the english army consisted of 900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers, these numbers have long been accepted as the true. However recent research by Anne Curry using muster rolls and indentures show that the English could have had as many as 1600 men-at-arms and 7600 archers (less losses on the march).
Here are a few breakdowns I have in my books:
The Teutonic order at the battle of Swiecin 1462:
1000 heavy cavalry, 600 light cavalry, 1300 milita (infantry) and 400 ’other’ infantyr (ie mercenaries)
Paid cavalry at the battle of Falkirk 1298:
214 bannerets and knights
642 troopers/men-at-arms of retinues
258 unattached men-at-arms
(all ’heavy cavalry’ but shows the breakdown between those of titled rank and those of untitled (esquires and non-nobles) rank. )
At Kephisos in 1311 the Army of the Duchy of Athens and the Principlaity of Achea
700 knights and 1300 ’other’ (ie more lightly equiped) cavalry)
Sicillian-German army at Benevento 1266
3200 knights/heavy cavalry, 400 Saracen light cavalry and a large number Saracen foot archers.
French army at Benevento 1266
3000 knights/heavy cavalry, possibly 2000 sergeants (somewhat lighter cavalry) and at least 6000+ infantry.
Real Light cavalry was a rare troop type in western Europe for most of the middle ages and can mostly be found in such areas were there was a true need such as Poland-Lithuania, Spain, Hungary and the various Crusaders states. Much of whats light cavalry such as the sergeants and coustilleirs was only called that because they were somewhat lighter in equipment than the heavy cavalry (knights/men-at-arms), not because they were true light cavalry. Indeed during the later half of the 13th Century mounted sergeants seem to disapear from the sources as the men-at-arms bcame the standard (and heavy) cavalryman in the west during the entire 14th Century. Of course men-at-amrs frequently foguth as heavy infantry, not heavy cavalry in the wars in England, France and Italy during this period.
Mounted infantry such as mounted archers and crossbowmen could fight both mounted and dismounted and fullfilled a lot of the dreary work most armies resrve ofr ligth cavalry much in the fashion of the later dragoons. The mounted archer in english service remained a dismounted fighter but in Italy and Germany mounted crossbowmen became an integral aprt of the mounted troops and frequently saw action mounted even if they were kept in the rear ranks or dismounted in an actual pitched battle. (But then most fighting occurred outside the battles)
However as amour became more advance and thus expensive by the begining of the 15th Century the heavy cavalry once again starts to be split into groups with varying amounts of armour. The core of a unit would be the front rank of fully armored men often mounted on armored horses but the 2nd and posibly (in Italy forexample) 3rd rank would be formed by less well equiped men, in France and Burgundy called Coustilliers, not sure about the proper Italian name at the moment. In England dismounted combat is still favoured and instead the dvindlign number of men-at-arms are supported by billmen who provide a more numerous force of reasoanbly well armoured close combat infantry.
In Italy real light cavalry recrutied in Hungary and Albania becoem a regular feature of warfare together with native Italian mounted crossbowmen. As the Great Italian wars erupts in 1494 ’true’ light cavalry becomes a feature of all involved armies as one had have to have them to counter the enemys force of light cavalry.
The French changed to light cavalry quickly??? When?, certainly not in either the 15th och 16th Centuries when the fully armored Gendarmes on their armored horses remained the core of the french army. The more lightly equiped coustilliers disapeared as a combatant during the first quarter of the 16th Century and the "archers" stopped using the bow and became lancers during the same period. The ’Archer’ as a lancer was only slightly less well equiped than the Gendarmes wearing ¾ plate armour but ridign an unarmored horse. Indeed the French army didn't even posses light cavalry as such until the late 15th century and after a a couple of decades in which the light cavalryman or Chevaux-leger had been popular the Chevaux-legers were converted into ordinary Gendermes and ’Archers’ during the civil wars which started in the 1560’s. By 1569 the French fielded 13500 Gendarmes and Archers but only 600 light cavalry men of all sorts.
(Numbers taken from Wood’s ’The King’s Army’)
| Jared Smith wrote: |
|
I don't consider artwork authoritative, but you can find pictures of tapestries in this time frame illustrating mounted individuals, mixed in with foot combat (French/Flemmish), wearing what appears to be leather, scale, mail, and various completeness harness of plate all togather in a single battle scene. On the other hand, there is a lot of art that has the generic everyone is the same (full harness, no surcoat footsoldiers-presumably the infantry marching in the sun between battles in this kind of stuff.) I would not have wanted to do that. I doubt they did either! |
Using artwork for research is a true art ;-) One has to be aware of a lot of traps and pitfalls when doing so, artworks in themself has a limted value as evidence unless what they show can ve verified with written soruces or with preserved items. With some experience one can soon begin to detect which paintings are based on real arms, armour& practices and which are not. I’m not sure which of the many fantastic and well preserved tapestries you are refering to above but the ones I’ve seen which were capured by the Swiss during the Burgundian war in the 1470’s have a fascinating mix of accurate details and ’fantasy’ elements.
One of the major problems with any mediveal art is that it just about invariably shows the military equipment in use at the time the artwork was made. Thus the famous ”Rous Roll” which shows events in the days of Henry V gives a very detail depiction of military equipment from the 1480’s and 1490s, not the 1410s and so on.