I have been reading about the English military statutes of the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and have encountered certain problems regarding the nomenclature of a certain "armatii". I tried to look for the term on the internet but found contradictory information about what this military class would be: in some places they are referred to as another way of calling themselves "hobilars", in others they are referred to as "cavalry that is not of knights or esquires" and sometimes as armoured infantry. Peter Armstrong in his "Otterburn 1388: Bloddy Border Conflict" says the "armatti" were men-at-arms recruited from the common and non-gentle class (p. 28), is this correct?
Everyone who was expected to serve and had mail armor also was expected to have his own mount? When I see "hobilars" being mentioned in english military I should take them as mounted infantry or sometimes they also employed irish horsemen in the campaigns against France?
The King's Guard was composed only of archers or also included knights and billmen (after they start appearing at least)?
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| I have been reading about the English military statutes of the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and have encountered certain problems regarding the nomenclature of a certain "armatii". I tried to look for the term on the internet but found contradictory information about what this military class would be: in some places they are referred to as another way of calling themselves "hobilars", in others they are referred to as "cavalry that is not of knights or esquires" and sometimes as armoured infantry. Peter Armstrong in his "Otterburn 1388: Bloddy Border Conflict" says the "armatti" were men-at-arms recruited from the common and non-gentle class (p. 28), is this correct? |
All of them were correct in some sense. In order to figure out the meaning of specific military administrative terms, you need to narrow it down to the specific campaign and indeed sometimes to the specific document in question. This is particularly important since English records in this era contained two terms that sounded very similar but had different meanings. One is "homines armati," "hommes d'armes," or "men-at-arms" (obviously meaning "knightly" combatants), while the other is usually rendered along the lines of "hommes armetz" or "armed men" and usually meant some lower-tier troops, often armoured infantry (although sometimes it also referred to things like mounted constables/serjeants or hobelars too). Indeed, sometimes we see the medieval clerks themselves getting confused over the similar-but-different terms.
| Quote: |
| Everyone who was expected to serve and had mail armor also was expected to have his own mount? |
Not always. For instance, the "hommes armetz" mentioned above are usually interpreted as infantry since the list of arms demanded of them didn't include horses.
| Quote: |
| When I see "hobilars" being mentioned in english military I should take them as mounted infantry or sometimes they also employed irish horsemen in the campaigns against France? |
In most cases you probably could expect them to be native English or English subjects from what is now continental France -- Anglo-Irish hobilars were there in the beginning but their mode of warfare didn't seem to have been so unique that it could not be imitated by troops recruited elsewhere. Indeed, recent research has questioned the purported "Irish" origins of the hobelar: https://orca.cf.ac.uk/77656/1/CHP%202008.1%20Jones.pdf
| Quote: |
| The King's Guard was composed only of archers or also included knights and billmen (after they start appearing at least)? |
Which particular King's Guard?
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
Not always. For instance, the "hommes armetz" mentioned above are usually interpreted as infantry since the list of arms demanded of them didn't include horses. |
So, armati would usually be "hommes armetz" instead of a "hommes d'armes" except in special contexts and manuscripts, right?
This said document mentioned, did it mentions what equipment the "hommes armetz" had to afford? Because if we take the english hobilars as an exemple, all of them had horses but their equipment was mainly padded jack's. If armati were required to show up with mail armor, then I would suspect their should have horses too ...
| Quote: |
| The King's Guard was composed only of archers or also included knights and billmen (after they start appearing at least)? |
| Quote: |
| Which particular King's Guard? |
I should be more specific mentioning english kings, since bill is a traditional english weapon (I've seen french regal troop with falchard too, however). I know it was introduced in France by 1450's when english soldiers were shipped to France to defend Normandy, taking part in the Battle of Formigny. Heath says the english bill wasn't too much popular in English France, but it was considerably popular in England as a militia weapon (although never being as popular as the longbow).
I also know that both archers and billmen should have the same basic equipment (jack, helmet, sword and buckler), but I also find pictures and descriptions with billmen sometimes wearing heavier armor (often plate) than archers, so I believe this would be indicative of retainers of noblemen and king's household troops and retainers.
Armati are not men at arms.
They are listed in musters as a specific and separate troop type. They are also not the same as hobelars from what I can tell.
I am in the middle of a project but I will throw some info up later. I have a book set to be published soon that will include this.
What I see for the later 13th into the 14th looks like this
Men at arms
hobelars
Armed men/armati
archers
The last two groups can be split to footmen or simply called foot. First two horsemen or horse.
There are a few accounts that are less clear and even a few others that contradict this but this is what the terms seem to be and largely develop to in the 14th into the 15th centuries.
Best,
RPM
They are listed in musters as a specific and separate troop type. They are also not the same as hobelars from what I can tell.
I am in the middle of a project but I will throw some info up later. I have a book set to be published soon that will include this.
What I see for the later 13th into the 14th looks like this
Men at arms
hobelars
Armed men/armati
archers
The last two groups can be split to footmen or simply called foot. First two horsemen or horse.
There are a few accounts that are less clear and even a few others that contradict this but this is what the terms seem to be and largely develop to in the 14th into the 15th centuries.
Best,
RPM
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| So, armati would usually be "hommes armetz" instead of a "hommes d'armes" except in special contexts and manuscripts, right? |
Unlike Randall, I wouldn't be so quick to draw a line between the two. It'd be more accurate to say that I'd treat every record as a special context, especially since I haven't really read enough of them to discern any consistent patterns in naming across a sufficiently large body of sources.
"Armati" without qualifiers might mean armoured infantry in most cases, I guess. But we still need to be careful since some sources mention "homines armati" and I've seen some of them use this term for the men-at-arms (judging by the way the "homines armati" were placed at the heads of the respective lists and their high pay). But others do use "homines armati" or "homines armatos" or whatever for troops that are clearly not men-at-arms -- usually we can tell this when they refer to men-at-arms by some other terms such as "homines ad arma" or "homines equites ad arma." Confusingly enough, some of the latter category of sources mentions "homines pedites ad arma," and we have to look closely at pay rates, equipment, and other contextual evidence to see whether these were men-at-arms on foot service (we can usually tell this by their high pay and the fact that they had horses) or non-chivalric armoured infantry.
| Quote: |
| This said document mentioned, did it mentions what equipment the "hommes armetz" had to afford? Because if we take the english hobilars as an exemple, all of them had horses but their equipment was mainly padded jack's. |
Some sources do. For instance, the summons by Edward II in 1322 mentioned armati cum aketonis bacinettis cum cirotecis ferreis. The specific memorandum that said "hommes armetz" from the 1340s(?) said grosses launces e bacinetz bournies.
| Quote: |
| If armati were required to show up with mail armor, then I would suspect their should have horses too ... |
Not unless the specific record(s) in question actually say so. And the only "homines armati" I know of for whom horses were prescribed were the ones who were clearly men-at-arms.
| Quote: | ||||
I should be more specific mentioning english kings, since bill is a traditional english weapon (I've seen french regal troop with falchard too, however). I know it was introduced in France by 1450's when english soldiers were shipped to France to defend Normandy, taking part in the Battle of Formigny. Heath says the english bill wasn't too much popular in English France, but it was considerably popular in England as a militia weapon (although never being as popular as the longbow). |
I still don't understand what or which "King's Guard" you're referring to. Before the Yeomen of the Guard were established in the 1470s/1480s, English royal guards seemed to have been ad hoc companies/retinues rather than any permanently embodied units, so it's hard to draw useful generalisations about them.
| Quote: |
| I also know that both archers and billmen should have the same basic equipment (jack, helmet, sword and buckler), but I also find pictures and descriptions with billmen sometimes wearing heavier armor (often plate) than archers, so I believe this would be indicative of retainers of noblemen and king's household troops and retainers. |
Not really. Jack/aketon and helmet were minimum standards of equipment -- basically what one would get fined for (or rejected during recruitment) if one couldn't meet these standards. But there were plenty of troops who wore better gear than these standards, too, and they didn't always have to be elite noble or royal guards. Indeed, even archers wore breastplates if they could afford them (or loot a suitably sized one off an enemy corpse or armoury).
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| So, armati would usually be "hommes armetz" instead of a "hommes d'armes" except in special contexts and manuscripts, right? |
Unlike Randall, I wouldn't be so quick to draw a line between the two. It'd be more accurate to say that I'd treat every record as a special context, especially since I haven't really read enough of them to discern any consistent patterns in naming across a sufficiently large body of sources.
"Armati" without qualifiers might mean armoured infantry in most cases, I guess. But we still need to be careful since some sources mention "homines armati" and I've seen some of them use this term for the men-at-arms (judging by the way the "homines armati" were placed at the heads of the respective lists and their high pay). But others do use "homines armati" or "homines armatos" or whatever for troops that are clearly not men-at-arms -- usually we can tell this when they refer to men-at-arms by some other terms such as "homines ad arma" or "homines equites ad arma." Confusingly enough, some of the latter category of sources mentions "homines pedites ad arma," and we have to look closely at pay rates, equipment, and other contextual evidence to see whether these were men-at-arms on foot service (we can usually tell this by their high pay and the fact that they had horses) or non-chivalric armoured infantry.
| Quote: |
| This said document mentioned, did it mentions what equipment the "hommes armetz" had to afford? Because if we take the english hobilars as an exemple, all of them had horses but their equipment was mainly padded jack's. |
Some sources do. For instance, the summons by Edward II in 1322 mentioned armati cum aketonis bacinettis cum cirotecis ferreis. The specific memorandum that said "hommes armetz" from the 1340s(?) said grosses launces e bacinetz bournies.
| Quote: |
| If armati were required to show up with mail armor, then I would suspect their should have horses too ... |
Not unless the specific record(s) in question actually say so. And the only "homines armati" I know of for whom horses were prescribed were the ones who were clearly men-at-arms.
| Quote: | ||||
I should be more specific mentioning english kings, since bill is a traditional english weapon (I've seen french regal troop with falchard too, however). I know it was introduced in France by 1450's when english soldiers were shipped to France to defend Normandy, taking part in the Battle of Formigny. Heath says the english bill wasn't too much popular in English France, but it was considerably popular in England as a militia weapon (although never being as popular as the longbow). |
I still don't understand what or which "King's Guard" you're referring to. Before the Yeomen of the Guard were established in the 1470s/1480s, English royal guards seemed to have been ad hoc companies/retinues rather than any permanently embodied units, so it's hard to draw useful generalisations about them.
| Quote: |
| I also know that both archers and billmen should have the same basic equipment (jack, helmet, sword and buckler), but I also find pictures and descriptions with billmen sometimes wearing heavier armor (often plate) than archers, so I believe this would be indicative of retainers of noblemen and king's household troops and retainers. |
Not really. Jack/aketon and helmet were minimum standards of equipment -- basically what one would get fined for (or rejected during recruitment) if one couldn't meet these standards. But there were plenty of troops who wore better gear than these standards, too, and they didn't always have to be elite noble or royal guards. Indeed, even archers wore breastplates if they could afford them (or loot a suitably sized one off an enemy corpse or armoury).
| Quote: |
| Unlike Randall, I wouldn't be so quick to draw a line between the two. It'd be more accurate to say that I'd treat every record as a special context, especially since I haven't really read enough of them to discern any consistent patterns in naming across a sufficiently large body of sources.
|
Well after reading through the main royal records of England for 200 years I feel pretty confident that almost every single time the term used for armed man is not a man at arms. There are a few exceptions but they are likely more clerical errors than in the term itself when you look at the original docs.
So if you want to see the book it is in the coming as soon as I can but until that time you can trust me or read all the calendars of close, patent rolls and other on your own and get a feel. I'd appreciate getting a second opinion on it. Most luckily are available online now and are only some 10k plus pages in small print, ;) It has a surprising degree of continuity through the 1300-1500 period which is not uncommon, archer never changes, but many others become less common or disappear altogether. Armati seem to get put under pedes often which is where archer tend to go often as well.
Armed men in English sources of this period from what I have seen mean a man who is not mounted but armed fairly comprehensively.
They seem to show up in town musters like this as well aside Men at arms. It really is the only way this term would work in the context. I cannot recall a single source where they have horses for example which is the main distinction for men at arms. That said I have seen men at arms expected to fight on foot but not the other way around.
As they are more fully equipped being paid more would not be uncommon for this period.
Lafayette if you have any examples of the opposite I'd love to see them.
We have household soldiers of men who accompany the king, Richard II has his Chester archers for example but generally aside from the guys who are listed in the pay accounts I guess you'd have whatever castle garrison the king was at as his guard.
RPM
So here is how I suspect this all breaks down
CPR Ed II Vol. IV
Pg. 208
Array of all men at arms and footmen,
MAA
all with 20l of land to have horse worth 100s., aketon, habergeon, bascinet with aventail, gaunts of steel, sword, lance and knife.
Pg. 209
10l. Horse of 40s and same equipment,
Armed men
every man of 100s or 5l the same arms,
with 40s haketon, palet, gaunts, sword, lance and knife,
all men with less to have a sword, bow and arrows or lance.
Somewhere between the last two is the basic levied man.
They put armed men into footmen at times but they also use them as separate troop types of footmen and armed men as well.
So to me this is the most logical conclusion. I am tempted to throw hobelars in as the second mounted class but am still trying to figure this out 100%. I have some pretty strong evidence for it but need to reflect more on it.
But armed men as I said before seems to be pretty solid from these sorts of documents, arrays and musters.
Best,
RPM
CPR Ed II Vol. IV
Pg. 208
Array of all men at arms and footmen,
MAA
all with 20l of land to have horse worth 100s., aketon, habergeon, bascinet with aventail, gaunts of steel, sword, lance and knife.
Pg. 209
10l. Horse of 40s and same equipment,
Armed men
every man of 100s or 5l the same arms,
with 40s haketon, palet, gaunts, sword, lance and knife,
all men with less to have a sword, bow and arrows or lance.
Somewhere between the last two is the basic levied man.
They put armed men into footmen at times but they also use them as separate troop types of footmen and armed men as well.
So to me this is the most logical conclusion. I am tempted to throw hobelars in as the second mounted class but am still trying to figure this out 100%. I have some pretty strong evidence for it but need to reflect more on it.
But armed men as I said before seems to be pretty solid from these sorts of documents, arrays and musters.
Best,
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| So here is how I suspect this all breaks down
CPR Ed II Vol. IV Pg. 208 Array of all men at arms and footmen, MAA all with 20l of land to have horse worth 100s., aketon, habergeon, bascinet with aventail, gaunts of steel, sword, lance and knife. Pg. 209 10l. Horse of 40s and same equipment, Armed men every man of 100s or 5l the same arms, with 40s haketon, palet, gaunts, sword, lance and knife, all men with less to have a sword, bow and arrows or lance. Somewhere between the last two is the basic levied man. They put armed men into footmen at times but they also use them as separate troop types of footmen and armed men as well. So to me this is the most logical conclusion. I am tempted to throw hobelars in as the second mounted class but am still trying to figure this out 100%. I have some pretty strong evidence for it but need to reflect more on it. But armed men as I said before seems to be pretty solid from these sorts of documents, arrays and musters. Best, RPM |
Questions:
1) Armed Men worth between 100s and 5l should - if I'm reading this right - have a 40s horse, aketon, habergeon, bascinet with aventail, gaunts of steel, sword, lance and knife?
2) By "basic levied man" you assert that most are in this 40s or less range?
3) "Lance" usually means spear in this context, which I get, but where's the shield to go with it?
Thanks,
M.
M.,
Not to my thinking. That is why I added armed men in before this entry
Armed men
"every man of 100s or 5l the same arms, "
So the same arms but no horse. "., aketon, habergeon, bascinet with aventail, gaunts of steel, sword, lance and knife. "
Lance and spear are pretty much the same thing for war often in this period so not such a big issue one way or the other.
I think we can safely assume the 40s and lower is where most of the footmen and population would reside. 40 shillings is 2lbs. That is a fair amount of money in this period still.
To be honest the 10lb and 20lb are both pretty high. 20lbs is about the value of knightly income, perhaps an esquire or something.
I think 5lbs is where mounted archers and hobelars are given in a few sources of Ed III so perhaps this 10lb was before they dropped the value of assessment to 5lb? One of the things they repeat over and over is that the quality of horses was lower with hobelars than Men at arms. As well I have a later hobelar assessment and the equipment is very similar to that one. The lack of a horse kills this for a hobelar though.
I do not know why they do not require shields. There is the possibility they were brought in large numbers to the field by the king, county or whatever. They show up in some rather big numbers in a few accounts I have seen.
The armed men seem to be used a great deal at sea as well. At times they are being used to bolster the MAA. But you see them in garrisons with archers, MAA and footman pretty often.
Best
RPM
Not to my thinking. That is why I added armed men in before this entry
Armed men
"every man of 100s or 5l the same arms, "
So the same arms but no horse. "., aketon, habergeon, bascinet with aventail, gaunts of steel, sword, lance and knife. "
Lance and spear are pretty much the same thing for war often in this period so not such a big issue one way or the other.
I think we can safely assume the 40s and lower is where most of the footmen and population would reside. 40 shillings is 2lbs. That is a fair amount of money in this period still.
To be honest the 10lb and 20lb are both pretty high. 20lbs is about the value of knightly income, perhaps an esquire or something.
I think 5lbs is where mounted archers and hobelars are given in a few sources of Ed III so perhaps this 10lb was before they dropped the value of assessment to 5lb? One of the things they repeat over and over is that the quality of horses was lower with hobelars than Men at arms. As well I have a later hobelar assessment and the equipment is very similar to that one. The lack of a horse kills this for a hobelar though.
I do not know why they do not require shields. There is the possibility they were brought in large numbers to the field by the king, county or whatever. They show up in some rather big numbers in a few accounts I have seen.
The armed men seem to be used a great deal at sea as well. At times they are being used to bolster the MAA. But you see them in garrisons with archers, MAA and footman pretty often.
Best
RPM
So I was doing some research (as I do most days) and came across something that was related to this thread-
EdIII vol. 11 pg. 413, March 28, 1360
Commission to Hugh Chastilon and his fellows, arrayers of men at arms and archers in the county of Buckingham, reciting that because it is the king's will that twentymen at arms, to wit the said Hugh, Henry Chalfhunt, Geoffrey de Lucy, John son of John Giffard, Edmund de Hampden, Edmund Waleys, Martin Chaunceux, John de Coueley, William Wyot, John de Thame, Thomas Frisel, Richard Hampden, John Baret, John de Wermeston, John de Amondesham, John Reynam, John de Nowers of Gothirst, and three other men at arms, twenty armed men and eighty archers of the strongest and bravest of the county be selected in the county and go in ships upon the sea for the defence of the realm, he commands that on sight of these presents these said men be arrayed and duly furnished with arms, armour, bows and arrows and brought to Sandwich and that if need be they be compelled to this by incarceration of their bodies and taking of their lands and goods into the king's hand, so that they be there by Tuesday in Easter week to enter the ships ordained to take them to go on the king's service at the accustomed wages of war. In the meantime the commissioners are to send men to Sandwich to provide victuals for the men ready to be shipped on their arrival. It is the king's will also that when they reach the sea their horses shall be sent back to their own parts. He has commanded the collectors of the tenth and fifteenth granted by the commonalty of the realm for the expenses of the men going on the said service to pay them their wages, to wit to every knight 2s. to an esquire 12d. to an armed man 6d. and to an archer 4d. a day, for one month from the time of at which they left the said county. Furthermore he gives the commissioners power to arrest and imprison contrariants or rebels and take their lands and goods into his hand, and hereby gives command to the sheriff, men at arms and archers, mayors, bailiffs,ministers and others of the said county to be attending, answering, counselling and aiding to them in the premises. By the guardian & C.
This goes on for pages county by county and town by town.
I added the bold to show how the breakdown goes in most English record I have seen showing the division between troops. I will try finding a more elaborate ones as some include footmen which usually are 3-4p a day.
RPM
EdIII vol. 11 pg. 413, March 28, 1360
Commission to Hugh Chastilon and his fellows, arrayers of men at arms and archers in the county of Buckingham, reciting that because it is the king's will that twentymen at arms, to wit the said Hugh, Henry Chalfhunt, Geoffrey de Lucy, John son of John Giffard, Edmund de Hampden, Edmund Waleys, Martin Chaunceux, John de Coueley, William Wyot, John de Thame, Thomas Frisel, Richard Hampden, John Baret, John de Wermeston, John de Amondesham, John Reynam, John de Nowers of Gothirst, and three other men at arms, twenty armed men and eighty archers of the strongest and bravest of the county be selected in the county and go in ships upon the sea for the defence of the realm, he commands that on sight of these presents these said men be arrayed and duly furnished with arms, armour, bows and arrows and brought to Sandwich and that if need be they be compelled to this by incarceration of their bodies and taking of their lands and goods into the king's hand, so that they be there by Tuesday in Easter week to enter the ships ordained to take them to go on the king's service at the accustomed wages of war. In the meantime the commissioners are to send men to Sandwich to provide victuals for the men ready to be shipped on their arrival. It is the king's will also that when they reach the sea their horses shall be sent back to their own parts. He has commanded the collectors of the tenth and fifteenth granted by the commonalty of the realm for the expenses of the men going on the said service to pay them their wages, to wit to every knight 2s. to an esquire 12d. to an armed man 6d. and to an archer 4d. a day, for one month from the time of at which they left the said county. Furthermore he gives the commissioners power to arrest and imprison contrariants or rebels and take their lands and goods into his hand, and hereby gives command to the sheriff, men at arms and archers, mayors, bailiffs,ministers and others of the said county to be attending, answering, counselling and aiding to them in the premises. By the guardian & C.
This goes on for pages county by county and town by town.
I added the bold to show how the breakdown goes in most English record I have seen showing the division between troops. I will try finding a more elaborate ones as some include footmen which usually are 3-4p a day.
RPM
Another interesting one that ties into a general levy. The breakdown I posted before by estate makes me think I am right because of things like this.
EdIII vol. 15 pg.88 , May 16, 1371
Appointment, in order to the despatch of the ships appointed to go to sea with Guy de Briene against the king's enemies of France, of the said Guy and Walter de Hanlegh and Walter de Wodeburgh, serjeants at arms, to take in the counties of Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall, Gloucester and Southampton men-at-arms, armed men, archers and mariners, as well those arrayed by-arrayers in the said counties as others, except such as are of the retinue of lords, for the defence of the said ships, put them in the ships to go therein at the king's wages, arrest all who are contrariant, seize their lands and goods into the king's hand,and commit their bodies to prison until the king give further order touching their punishment.
RPM
EdIII vol. 15 pg.88 , May 16, 1371
Appointment, in order to the despatch of the ships appointed to go to sea with Guy de Briene against the king's enemies of France, of the said Guy and Walter de Hanlegh and Walter de Wodeburgh, serjeants at arms, to take in the counties of Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall, Gloucester and Southampton men-at-arms, armed men, archers and mariners, as well those arrayed by-arrayers in the said counties as others, except such as are of the retinue of lords, for the defence of the said ships, put them in the ships to go therein at the king's wages, arrest all who are contrariant, seize their lands and goods into the king's hand,and commit their bodies to prison until the king give further order touching their punishment.
RPM
Great stuff Randall. Thanks for sharing.
Not a problem. I run through lists of things like this so lots of source material. These two are sort of interesting to me in their own ways.
RPM
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
|
What I see for the later 13th into the 14th looks like this Men at arms hobelars Armed men/armati archers The last two groups can be split to footmen or simply called foot. First two horsemen or horse. |
But the hobelars didn't fought on foot?
The 1285's Statute of Winchester obliged men with £40 of land to serve as knights, those with £20 to serve as "men-at-arms", £15 to serve as "armati", those with £10 as infantry in aketons, these with £2-5 as archers with bow, sword and knife; and finally those with less than £2 to serve with bows and arrows if they had then or else sword, knife and whatever other weapons they might had with them (Heath, pp. 4). Although Heath makes clear, in this specific case, there was a military distinction between men-at-arms and armati, their revenue wasn't so distant; which gives you the reason when saying the armed men were soldiers who were armed fairly comprehensively.
-----
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Some sources do. For instance, the summons by Edward II in 1322 mentioned armati cum aketonis bacinettis cum cirotecis ferreis. The specific memorandum that said "hommes armetz" from the 1340s(?) said grosses launces e bacinetz bournies. |
"cirrotecis ferreis" and "bacitez bournies" both mean the mail collar/camail that was fixed in the bascinet?
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
Not unless the specific record(s) in question actually say so. And the only "homines armati" I know of for whom horses were prescribed were the ones who were clearly men-at-arms. |
In that case, the records might be implicitly saying war horses, instead of the ones who were used for transport and such?
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| I still don't understand what or which "King's Guard" you're referring to. Before the Yeomen of the Guard were established in the 1470s/1480s, English royal guards seemed to have been ad hoc companies/retinues rather than any permanently embodied units, so it's hard to draw useful generalisations about them. |
But a royal retinue wasn't actually permanently employed? I have read this:
| Quote: |
| The English armies of 14th century, including the longbowmen, mainly comprised the levy and the so-called ‘indentured retinue’. The latter category entailed a sort-of contract between the King and his nobles that allowed the monarch to call upon the retainers of the noblemen for purposes of wars (especially in the overseas). This pseudo-feudal arrangement fueled a class of semi-professional soldiers who were mostly inhabitants from around the estates of the lords and the kings. And among these retainers, the most skilled were the longbowmen of the household. The archers from the King’s own household were termed the ‘Yeomen of the Crown’, and they were rightly considered the elite even among the experienced archers. |
https://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/05/03/10-interesting-facts-english-longbowman/
The Yeomen of the Crown wasn't some kind of King's Guard? I know the Black Prince also had a few hundred of mounted archers as his personal guard. The file below describes the Guard of King Edward Longshanks at his scottish campaigns of late 13th century (source: Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297 - 1298. pp. 22.)
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
Not really. Jack/aketon and helmet were minimum standards of equipment -- basically what one would get fined for (or rejected during recruitment) if one couldn't meet these standards. But there were plenty of troops who wore better gear than these standards, too, and they didn't always have to be elite noble or royal guards. Indeed, even archers wore breastplates if they could afford them (or loot a suitably sized one off an enemy corpse or armoury). |
So why the 1285's Statute of Winchester obliged people with £5 and less to serve without gamberson? It was a "just in case" situation? The 1385's Castillian Ordinance of arms and armor (if we could +/- draw a parallel here) didn't obliged the crossbowmen and javelineers to have aketons.
Attachment: 55.75 KB
Pedro,
I personally suspect that the only difference between armed men and hobelars is a horse. This is a rather big distinction. Having a horse would greatly enhance the obligation. Keep in mind the trend over the 14th is a lowering of the base level of wealth for them a knight goes to about 20lns fairly often.
Now whether the hobelars fought on foot or not in this case is irrelevant. The horse let them keep up with the MAA and other mounted troops.
In a larger question I do not know. I think the argument against hobelars fighting on foot alone is not well supported by evidence. Certainly not enough to make me think they only did that. Truth is I have followed the debate and found it rather light as far as surety.
-
cirrotecis ferreis" and "bacitez bournies"
neither of these mean mail collars.
The one means iron gauntlets and the second is a burnished bascinet.
I have not found any evidence of horses being required for the armed men group which makes me think this is the major difference.
RPM
I personally suspect that the only difference between armed men and hobelars is a horse. This is a rather big distinction. Having a horse would greatly enhance the obligation. Keep in mind the trend over the 14th is a lowering of the base level of wealth for them a knight goes to about 20lns fairly often.
Now whether the hobelars fought on foot or not in this case is irrelevant. The horse let them keep up with the MAA and other mounted troops.
In a larger question I do not know. I think the argument against hobelars fighting on foot alone is not well supported by evidence. Certainly not enough to make me think they only did that. Truth is I have followed the debate and found it rather light as far as surety.
-
cirrotecis ferreis" and "bacitez bournies"
neither of these mean mail collars.
The one means iron gauntlets and the second is a burnished bascinet.
I have not found any evidence of horses being required for the armed men group which makes me think this is the major difference.
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| Another interesting one that ties into a general levy. The breakdown I posted before by estate makes me think I am right because of things like this.
EdIII vol. 15 pg.88 , May 16, 1371 Appointment, in order to the despatch of the ships appointed to go to sea with Guy de Briene against the king's enemies of France, of the said Guy and Walter de Hanlegh and Walter de Wodeburgh, serjeants at arms, to take in the counties of Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall, Gloucester and Southampton men-at-arms, armed men, archers and mariners, as well those arrayed by-arrayers in the said counties as others, except such as are of the retinue of lords, for the defence of the said ships, put them in the ships to go therein at the king's wages, arrest all who are contrariant, seize their lands and goods into the king's hand,and commit their bodies to prison until the king give further order touching their punishment. RPM |
Those are some interesting passages! Maybe you could frame your publication around the differences socially and technically between English armies in England and English armies in France? Because it does not seem like they had a place on a chevauchee for the armati, but they show up in musters of the militia or documents about fleets or royal grants of armour to ships' captains.
The term "armed men" was still living in England in the 16th century:
| Sir John Smythe, Certain Instructions, Discourses, and Orders Militarie (1594) p. 12 wrote: |
| If the Captain of the band be disposed to arme, and draw two sleeues of any one sort of those weapons of volee by the flanks of the armed men, he may then with great celerity perform the same, either by cōmanding by the stroke of the drum, or by som briefe speach, that al the piquers and short wepons shal aduance their piques and make a stand, and hauing reduced those armed men into som kind of square,... |
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/a12568.0001.001
So they were still men on foot with half armour and edged weapons.
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| So why the 1285's Statute of Winchester obliged people with £5 and less to serve without gamberson? It was a "just in case" situation? The 1385's Castillian Ordinance of arms and armor (if we could +/- draw a parallel here) didn't obliged the crossbowmen and javelineers to have aketons. |
They aren't obliged to serve without a gambeson or pourpoint, but rather, allowed to serve, despite being unable to afford even the most basic armor. These are the poor, who would only be called up as a last resort. Many of these men use missile weapons, as they are would be slaughtered in close combat with armed men.
Sean,
I will indeed talk a little about them but I do not know how much I will get into the social ones as much as one could. I think technical will be a bit more important to my thesis so likely to do that in some level of detail.
So you do at times see the armati going abroad and such but not seen any on chevauchee. This would make sense as this would be the MAA, Hobelars, mounted archers and such I suspect for mobility.
Pedro,
I suspect that every royal and noble had men around them who were armed at all times. The difference is in the later 14th we see evidence of larger groups that were basically full time mini-armies. Richard II had 500 Chester archers for his. They seem to have been fairly well hated by most of England as they seem to have been used as thugs depending on who you believe.
I think you always will have the poorest of the poor possibly in the field with little to no armour. That said the trend of kings I see in mainstream Europe is to push the better line for armour and arms on their men.
I have a few musters they show up in the 16th in England as well. I noticed they seem to use either armed men or billmen...
Mart,
I am not sure obliged is not always a good word. Sometimes they seem so.... ;)
Just got done with Ed II reign a few weeks ago and he was doing anything he could do for soldiers to save himself.
RPM
I will indeed talk a little about them but I do not know how much I will get into the social ones as much as one could. I think technical will be a bit more important to my thesis so likely to do that in some level of detail.
So you do at times see the armati going abroad and such but not seen any on chevauchee. This would make sense as this would be the MAA, Hobelars, mounted archers and such I suspect for mobility.
Pedro,
I suspect that every royal and noble had men around them who were armed at all times. The difference is in the later 14th we see evidence of larger groups that were basically full time mini-armies. Richard II had 500 Chester archers for his. They seem to have been fairly well hated by most of England as they seem to have been used as thugs depending on who you believe.
I think you always will have the poorest of the poor possibly in the field with little to no armour. That said the trend of kings I see in mainstream Europe is to push the better line for armour and arms on their men.
I have a few musters they show up in the 16th in England as well. I noticed they seem to use either armed men or billmen...
Mart,
I am not sure obliged is not always a good word. Sometimes they seem so.... ;)
Just got done with Ed II reign a few weeks ago and he was doing anything he could do for soldiers to save himself.
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| Armed men in English sources of this period from what I have seen mean a man who is not mounted but armed fairly comprehensively.
They seem to show up in town musters like this as well aside Men at arms. It really is the only way this term would work in the context. I cannot recall a single source where they have horses for example which is the main distinction for men at arms. That said I have seen men at arms expected to fight on foot but not the other way around. As they are more fully equipped being paid more would not be uncommon for this period. Lafayette if you have any examples of the opposite I'd love to see them. |
I've had a gander at the sources where I recall "homines armati" being men-at-arms, and I'm starting you might be right on this -- those sources are not English (mostly Italian, in fact), so maybe the English do use "homines armati" consistently for people who aren't men-at-arms.
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| So why the 1285's Statute of Winchester obliged people with £5 and less to serve without gamberson? |
Maybe because they weren't "armed men" at all. I have no idea why Heath said people who owned between 40d. and 5l. were "armati" or whatever because the actual text of the statute doesn't have the words "armed men" or "armati" in it at all. Here's a version of the relevant 6th chapter in modern English:
| Quote: |
| And further it is commanded that every man have in his house harness for to to keep the peace after the ancient assize; 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, for fifteen pounds lands, and goods of forty marks, an hauberke, an helm of iron, a lance, a knife, and a horse; and for ten pounds of lands, and twenty marks goods, an hauberke, an helm of iron, a lance, and a knife; and for five pounds of lands, a doublet, an helme of iron, a lance, and a knife; and from forty shillings of land and more up to one hundred shillings, a lance, a bow and arrows, and a knife; and he that hath less than forty shillings yearly shall be sworn to falces, gisarmes, knives, and other small arms; and he that hath less than twenty marks in goods, shall have swords, knives, and other small arms; and all other that may shall have bows and arrows out of the forest, and in the forest bows and pilets. |
See? Where's the "armati" in it? I'm not sure Heath is justified in slapping the name "armati" onto the 2-5l. category. If anything, the description of "armed men" is more consistent with the two categories above it (" for ten pounds of lands, and twenty marks goods, an hauberke, an helm of iron, a lance, and a knife; and for five pounds of lands, a doublet, an helme of iron, a lance, and a knife").
Personally I prefer if you use the term "armed men" since it'd be far more consistent with the naming of other components of the army -- that is, in relatively modern English terms like "men-at-arms" and "longbowmen" or "archers." If you use "armati" for these men you'd also have to use "sagittarii" or whatever for the archers and so on.
Last but not least, "gambeson" isn't spelled with an R, at least not the way we spell it today in (again) modern English.
Page 1 of 2
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