[Nathan Quarantillo]

Hello, I am inquiring on the number of men on the battlefield who would have armour. I have read that in the 13-early/mid 14th cent, that there was in fact a very small proportion of people in a medieval host who were armoured. But I find that this conflicts with period reports. For example, the battle of Arsuf, it is described that the infantry had maille hauberks & gambesons. Also, some battles in Scotland at the time mention that some schiltrons were less vulnerable to arrows because of a higher proportion of armoured men. Could someone better informed than I please clear this matter up for me?

all help is appreciated, thanks.

[Randall Moffett]

I think the problem you face is that in every specific battle/conflict it will be different. Sometimes you are fighting rebel commoners who'd often be armed to a limited amount while sometimes you might be facing a more professional army where everyone is well equipped. Really I am not sure how to answer this.

In most medieval european countries men were required to own weapons and armour to some extent. IT is different all over and you always have to wonder how well the program was run. In England you get some fairly steep fines for defaulting on the obligation which perhaps helped push people to get better arms and armour as required.

Another issue is that from 1200-1400 arms and armour development moves forwards in leaps and bounds. This may be slower for the poorer commoners but regardless important. By 1320 townsmen in Southampton are equipped and armed with fairly advanced plate and such to some degree.

Sorry if this is not helpful but more specifics would make it easier.

RPM

[Nathan Quarantillo]

Well then, specifically I how about a Hospitaller? I was wondering about the order crossbowmen. How much armour would they have? Just body and arms (hauberk+gambo)? And another thing, even if I go for a heavy infantry Hospitaller kit (BTW, this is all early 14th cent) and have (almost) full armour (maille hauberk+plate vambraces and knees+shynbalds) Would i have to have a shield? I was thinking either a long axe or spear w/ hand-and-a-half sword. would that be ok for a heavy Hospitaller foot? Or does no shield=death (and inaccuracy)?

[Kevin S]

If I remember correctly the Hospitallers hired mercenaries to serve as their infantry while the knights themselves focused mostly on being cavalry, but it's been a while so I might be wrong, and even then it might only apply to their earlier years. They did tend to be pretty well funded so I'd expect them to have decent armor though.

[Elling Polden]

While only a small portion of the population would be able to afford a full suit of armour, those that could not would often not be brought along on campaign, and if they did, they would not be the first in the battle lines.

High medevial warfare was based around groups of professional, well armed men-at-arms. Due to their armour, horses and training, these men could efficiently controll their designated piece of territory, without having to relly on the population as soldiers. If they needed them, they could raise leavies, but the main focus was the lord and his men.
Consequenty, when a higher lord called his vasals to supply troops for a campaign, it would be these men that showed up. If neccesary, the ranks would be fleshed out by the lords footmen, or leavies. However, the knight-peasant ratio would be a lot higher than the size of the classes would indicate.
The logistics, or rather lack thereoff, severely limited the practical size of medevial armies, so bringin more people wasn't always desirable.

[Randall Moffett]

late 13th early fourteenth. OK that helps.

I'd look at the Holkham bible for a second.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bannockburn.jpg

Almost every man has a helmet, everyone has at least a weapon. Some were armed with much more, mail, bits of plate armour. In the end by the late 13th common infantry could be armed nearly as well as a men-at-arms or with as little as if they were at home on the farm excepting a weapon.

From what I have seen the knights templat and of the hospital ususally had foot soldiers fighting for them be fairly well equipped whether of the order as sergeants or whatnot or hired.

RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Elling has described it quite succinctly--only a minority of the population had armor, but then it was only this minority who fought anyway. Moreover, the Hospitaller's troops, if anything, would have been more professional than most, so I think they probably would have refused anyone who couldn't comply with the relevant minimum standards of equipment. For a crossbowman I would expect at least a thick quilted jack, and it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect veterans to save up and acquire a coat of mail later on if they didn't already start with one.

[Randall Moffett]

I'd like to highlight that only a small percent had full harnesses but this does not hold for armour in general. In some places it'd be unlikely a large number of people would not have at least some bits of armour.

RPM

[Sean Manning]

[David Teague]

[Nathan Quarantillo]

David, what I was referring to with the schiltrons was not that they were unaffected by arrows (rather the opposite) but a mention that the ARMOURED MEN in the schiltron were not affected. I concluded that in order to warrant mention, there must have been a significant number of these men, and thus used it as an example.

[David Teague]

[Randall Moffett]

I'd think that very few medieval armies would be able to field a majority of men in full harness.

Hey David, as always the group is looking great!

RPM