Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Archer's defensive positions Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Andrew Gill





Joined: 19 Feb 2015

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Fri 27 May, 2016 2:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kirk K. wrote:
After all, if you brought along peasants to do the necessary scut work but not combat would you really place such workers on a muster role? Yet as I said, I seriously doubt any major military campaigns were launched without a significant force of such non-combatants; precisely the peasant levies I have been talking about.


I don't have solid evidence to prove that you are wrong, but I am somewhat sceptical of this.

Firstly, however relatively well off the archers and billmen were, many of them would have been used to manual labour, so wouldn't regard it with horror, and they certainly wouldn't have been fighting all the time while on campaign. There's an old saying: "an army marches on its stomach". If you drag a lot of non-combatants with you, it is so many more mouths to feed for questionable gain, which can be a problem if your men have been pillaging and practicing a scorched-earth policy on enemy territory for years (as the english apparently did in France at times during the hundred-years war). Any manual labour that needed doing could either be done by the common soldiers while not fighting, or could probably wait until after the battle was over.

Secondly, somebody had to keep farming and fishing and quarrying and blacksmithing and doing all the other things vital to a country's economy back home. If some peasants weren't well enough equipped to function effectively as soldiers, they'd probably be much more useful keeping their liege-lord solvent by working his lands and so on. War is an expensive exercise, and you don't want to be forced to abandon a campaign through lack of funds, or come home and find the place has gone to ruin.

Thirdly, I think that those few civilians who did accompany the baggage train in a support function were often women and possibly children - the wives or mistresses, and families of the soldiers. I'm by no means certain of this for the case of the hundred years war, but as far as I know, the landsknechts sometimes took their families along on campaign (there is certainly artwork suggesting this). I have heard that it was allowed by their commanders as a way to try to keep "practitioners of an ancient profession" and similar undesirables away from the army. I will admit that I am not certain on this point and so I speak under correction. But if if I am correct, I think you'll agree that women and small children would not usually have been considered as a military reserve of any sort at the time.

That's my argument, for what it is worth.
View user's profile Send private message
Alan E




Location: UK
Joined: 21 Jan 2016

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Fri 27 May, 2016 5:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Re. Archers needing dry stable soil to shoot from (please please, not fire! You only fire your bow after it breaks): There are several records in HYW at least (and probably elsewhere/when) of archers being deployed in marshy ground. The defensive position archers needed was one where cavalry couldn't ride them down and fully armoured men at arms were unable to frontally assault them. Where such defenses occurred naturally, they made use of them (woods, hedges, marshes, steeply rising ground), where natural defenses were inadequate they could be (and were) augmented or substituted for with man-made defenses (pot-holes, caltrops, fascines, sharpened stakes etc). Ground firm enough for a lightly armoured archer to not sink was required, marshy enough for a fully armoured man to struggle and to stop a horse cantering was an advantage.

There is evidence of non-combatants accompanying armies: Sometimes this would be wives and servants; more often skilled craftsmen for the making/repair of fortifications, bridges, weapons and armour (for which there is documentary evidence). Servants of men-at-arms would frequently be fighting men too - the standard 'lance' usually included such (although the actual makeup varied according to time and place). These were not peasants, who would indeed be working at home to raise the money to pay for this (or rioting against the taxes).

Andrew Gill wrote:
[War is an expensive exercise, and you don't want to be forced to abandon a campaign through lack of funds, or come home and find the place has gone to ruin.

Razz yes! Now if only Eddy III (Eng) and Charles V (Fr.) and their councils had realised this! They would have saved up for longer before each campaign Wink

Member of Exiles Medieval Martial Arts.
Currently teaching Fiore's art in Ceredigion
View user's profile Send private message
Kirk K.





Joined: 24 May 2016

Posts: 74

PostPosted: Fri 27 May, 2016 6:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Andrew Gill wrote:
Kirk K. wrote:
After all, if you brought along peasants to do the necessary scut work but not combat would you really place such workers on a muster role? Yet as I said, I seriously doubt any major military campaigns were launched without a significant force of such non-combatants; precisely the peasant levies I have been talking about.


I don't have solid evidence to prove that you are wrong, but I am somewhat sceptical of this.

Firstly, however relatively well off the archers and billmen were, many of them would have been used to manual labour, so wouldn't regard it with horror, and they certainly wouldn't have been fighting all the time while on campaign. There's an old saying: "an army marches on its stomach". If you drag a lot of non-combatants with you, it is so many more mouths to feed for questionable gain, which can be a problem if your men have been pillaging and practicing a scorched-earth policy on enemy territory for years (as the english apparently did in France at times during the hundred-years war). Any manual labour that needed doing could either be done by the common soldiers while not fighting, or could probably wait until after the battle was over.
I think you greatly underestimate the amount of work involved with setting up camps, hauling supplies, distributing food and water for thousands of men, improving the crappy roads so an army could pass without getting bogged down, clearing roads blocked by the enemy, rebuilding destroyed bridges, building siege machines and fortifications, etc. The idea that soldiers did all this themselves and still had the energy to do battle all day seems quite unbelievable to me.
----------
Quote:
Secondly, somebody had to keep farming and fishing and quarrying and blacksmithing and doing all the other things vital to a country's economy back home. If some peasants weren't well enough equipped to function effectively as soldiers, they'd probably be much more useful keeping their liege-lord solvent by working his lands and so on. War is an expensive exercise, and you don't want to be forced to abandon a campaign through lack of funds, or come home and find the place has gone to ruin.
England, for example, had a population of nearly 8 million in 1300. So levying three or so thousand peasants is going to lay waste to England's entire national economy??? There would be far, far more people at any given time available among the ranks of the unemployed. The real threat to the economy was monarchs bankrupting their nations in a military quest for more land, money and power.
----------
Quote:
Thirdly, I think that those few civilians who did accompany the baggage train in a support function were often women and possibly children - the wives or mistresses, and families of the soldiers. I'm by no means certain of this for the case of the hundred years war, but as far as I know, the landsknechts sometimes took their families along on campaign (there is certainly artwork suggesting this). I have heard that it was allowed by their commanders as a way to try to keep "practitioners of an ancient profession" and similar undesirables away from the army. I will admit that I am not certain on this point and so I speak under correction. But if if I am correct, I think you'll agree that women and small children would not usually have been considered as a military reserve of any sort at the time.

That's my argument, for what it is worth.
Camp followers certainly did some of the domestic work, but again I believe you are grossly underestimating the amount of scut work required in a Medieval campaign and the number of people required to do it. Mistresses and children certainly did not do such heavy work. The soldiers helped some, no doubt. But again, if the soldiers had to march with all their equipment, doing all that work along the way, and then much more brutal work after that long march I do not see them being combat effective for much more than a brief skirmish. No sane commander would willingly grind down his men like that right before battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Kirk K.





Joined: 24 May 2016

Posts: 74

PostPosted: Fri 27 May, 2016 6:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alan E wrote:
Re. Archers needing dry stable soil to shoot from (please please, not fire! You only fire your bow after it breaks): There are several records in HYW at least (and probably elsewhere/when) of archers being deployed in marshy ground. The defensive position archers needed was one where cavalry couldn't ride them down and fully armoured men at arms were unable to frontally assault them. Where such defenses occurred naturally, they made use of them (woods, hedges, marshes, steeply rising ground), where natural defenses were inadequate they could be (and were) augmented or substituted for with man-made defenses (pot-holes, caltrops, fascines, sharpened stakes etc). Ground firm enough for a lightly armoured archer to not sink was required, marshy enough for a fully armoured man to struggle and to stop a horse cantering was an advantage.
I at no time said that great footing was required, so that is merely a strawman. Yes, of course sometimes the tactical advantages of terrain outweigh the drawbacks of wet, less firm ground. That in no way says that firm, stable, level, relatively dry ground for archers was not an optimum situation a commander would strive to achieve.
----------
Quote:
There is evidence of non-combatants accompanying armies: Sometimes this would be wives and servants; more often skilled craftsmen for the making/repair of fortifications, bridges, weapons and armour (for which there is documentary evidence). Servants of men-at-arms would frequently be fighting men too - the standard 'lance' usually included such (although the actual makeup varied according to time and place). These were not peasants, who would indeed be working at home to raise the money to pay for this (or rioting against the taxes).
I think you are engaging in a little rhetorical hair-splitting here on trying to divide up the non-combantant workforce into peasants and non-peasants. And yes, some of the soldier's servants had combat training. So what? Are you suggesting the number of combat-trained servants came anywhere close to the number of non-combatants needed to do all that work? Those soldiers must have been very well served, indeed. 😉
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Fri 27 May, 2016 7:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kirk K. wrote:
I think you greatly underestimate the amount of work involved with setting up camps, hauling supplies, distributing food and water for thousands of men, improving the crappy roads so an army could pass without getting bogged down, clearing roads blocked by the enemy, rebuilding destroyed bridges, building siege machines and fortifications, etc. The idea that soldiers did all this themselves and still had the energy to do battle all day seems quite unbelievable to me.
...
Camp followers certainly did some of the domestic work, but again I believe you are grossly underestimating the amount of scut work required in a Medieval campaign and the number of people required to do it. Mistresses and children certainly did not do such heavy work. The soldiers helped some, no doubt. But again, if the soldiers had to march with all their equipment, doing all that work along the way, and then much more brutal work after that long march I do not see them being combat effective for much more than a brief skirmish. No sane commander would willingly grind down his men like that right before battle.


Well, there must have been plenty of madmen running armies through the centuries, because plenty of armies did that sort of thing just fine. Granted, no general planned to have his men doing major road construction and a major hike immediately before a battle! But since most armies moved on established roads, and camped in open areas where water was available, I actually think it might be you who is *overestimating* the amount of drudgery involved. Men could carry their own food, or fetch it from their wagons or pack animals, and strolled down to the river (or whatever) to get their own water. Assuming there were mess units of some sort, you'd have a couple guys getting firewood while a few others set up a tent or whatever shelter there was. Sounds kinda relaxing, actually.

Heck, the Romans did all this *in armor*, plus entrenching their camp, and could easily go into action the next morning if necessary. Granted, they're highly trained, but if wer're talking "peasant levies", we're talking farmers who were probably pretty used to a long day of manual labor.

Sure, all the tasks you mention are things the soldiers might have had to do. But most of them were pretty rare! Roads were built for wagons to travel on, and they were maintained (by local levied labor!) or the economy collapsed. So you can march an army along the road with no problem. IF the enemy has gotten so excited as to block it, or to destroy a bridge, it probably means that's where he's waiting to give battle. And really, even clearing trees off the road could involve only a tiny percentage of your force, and they can rest while the remainder of the army marches past.

But most often it seems to me that deploying for battle was something done in the morning, after everyone has had a good night's sleep. You need time to move thousands of men into position. There were obviously meeting engagements, as well, with both sides having to deploy suddenly from marching column, but neither would have any inherent disadvantage in that case.

For a siege, what's the big hurry? Once you've shown up and parked a few troops near the gates, it's mostly camping and watching. Lots of sieges didn't involve immense earthworks and monstrous towers. But if you needed those things, you'd spend a couple weeks making them. And again, only part of your troops would be working on these, while the rest sat around waiting for an attack.

There is certainly a percentage of nobility in any army who are not going to do their own manual labor! They'll likely bring their own servants for setting up camp, cooking, etc. None of that is very hard, either.

Remember, battles are RARE! Most of campaigning is marching, camping, and sitting around. None of the historical camping that I've done has involved huge amounts of work, either--you can cook for 20 people easily with one fire. If a road is badly blocked, you can stop and camp for a day or two until it's cleared. Certainly armies prefered not to campaign in winter when roads were naturally bad.

Bottom line, why bog down your force with even more non-combatants? The troops are all the labor you need.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Fri 27 May, 2016 8:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Kirk K. wrote:
I think you greatly underestimate the amount of work involved with setting up camps, hauling supplies, distributing food and water for thousands of men, improving the crappy roads so an army could pass without getting bogged down, clearing roads blocked by the enemy, rebuilding destroyed bridges, building siege machines and fortifications, etc. The idea that soldiers did all this themselves and still had the energy to do battle all day seems quite unbelievable to me.
...
Camp followers certainly did some of the domestic work, but again I believe you are grossly underestimating the amount of scut work required in a Medieval campaign and the number of people required to do it. Mistresses and children certainly did not do such heavy work. The soldiers helped some, no doubt. But again, if the soldiers had to march with all their equipment, doing all that work along the way, and then much more brutal work after that long march I do not see them being combat effective for much more than a brief skirmish. No sane commander would willingly grind down his men like that right before battle.


Well, there must have been plenty of madmen running armies through the centuries, because plenty of armies did that sort of thing just fine. Granted, no general planned to have his men doing major road construction and a major hike immediately before a battle! But since most armies moved on established roads, and camped in open areas where water was available, I actually think it might be you who is *overestimating* the amount of drudgery involved. Men could carry their own food, or fetch it from their wagons or pack animals, and strolled down to the river (or whatever) to get their own water. Assuming there were mess units of some sort, you'd have a couple guys getting firewood while a few others set up a tent or whatever shelter there was. Sounds kinda relaxing, actually.

Heck, the Romans did all this *in armor*, plus entrenching their camp, and could easily go into action the next morning if necessary. Granted, they're highly trained, but if wer're talking "peasant levies", we're talking farmers who were probably pretty used to a long day of manual labor.

Sure, all the tasks you mention are things the soldiers might have had to do. But most of them were pretty rare! Roads were built for wagons to travel on, and they were maintained (by local levied labor!) or the economy collapsed. So you can march an army along the road with no problem. IF the enemy has gotten so excited as to block it, or to destroy a bridge, it probably means that's where he's waiting to give battle. And really, even clearing trees off the road could involve only a tiny percentage of your force, and they can rest while the remainder of the army marches past.

But most often it seems to me that deploying for battle was something done in the morning, after everyone has had a good night's sleep. You need time to move thousands of men into position. There were obviously meeting engagements, as well, with both sides having to deploy suddenly from marching column, but neither would have any inherent disadvantage in that case.

For a siege, what's the big hurry? Once you've shown up and parked a few troops near the gates, it's mostly camping and watching. Lots of sieges didn't involve immense earthworks and monstrous towers. But if you needed those things, you'd spend a couple weeks making them. And again, only part of your troops would be working on these, while the rest sat around waiting for an attack.

There is certainly a percentage of nobility in any army who are not going to do their own manual labor! They'll likely bring their own servants for setting up camp, cooking, etc. None of that is very hard, either.

Remember, battles are RARE! Most of campaigning is marching, camping, and sitting around. None of the historical camping that I've done has involved huge amounts of work, either--you can cook for 20 people easily with one fire. If a road is badly blocked, you can stop and camp for a day or two until it's cleared. Certainly armies prefered not to campaign in winter when roads were naturally bad.

Bottom line, why bog down your force with even more non-combatants? The troops are all the labor you need.

Matthew

If the idea of making your troops do manual labor so suicidal, Marius wouldn't have restrutured to Roman army in such a way that every Roman soldier that wasn't an officer essentially doubled as an engineer. There are records and models of craptons of fortifications built by soldiers. Looks up the siege of Alesia, Kirk. To add to Matts statement about battles being rare, I would say for most of human military history, I commander wanting to make common, instead of the usual raiding, pillaging, besiegment and ocassional battles woyuld be a foolhardy move. Unlike sieges, were if you win, you get a another base of operations, food, water, shelter, and sucessful raid can valuable at low cost, battles can be high costs with uncertain gains even for the victor.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 12:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In fact, keeping your soldiers busy with manual labor has always been an important tool for maintaining discipline. Letting a massive body of armed and combat trained people grow bored and restless for lack of activity is a sure fire recipe for trouble.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 7:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Perhaps this is of some interest to you guys.

Quote:
State of that which could make the expense of the artillery that my very redoubtable and sovereign lord the Duke intends to take with him at the present time,: as he prescribes in his letters, consisting of 6 bombards, as many of iron as of metal, 6 mantlets for the said bombards, 6 sleds serving to the said mantlets, 12 stone balls for bombards, 6 bombardelles, 6 medium mantlets, 7 sleds for them, 12 stone balls for bombardelles, 6 mortars, 12 mortar stones, the serpentine Lambillon, 100 boulets for it, mantlets for trenches for mines, 10 courtaux, 2,000 stone balls for the said courtaux, 10 great serpentines, 3 serpentines: of l’hotel, 2 Jacquin serpentines and a serpentine of: Montlhery, 36 medium serpentines, 48 small serpentines, 200 arquebuses, 40,000 livres of lead as much in balls as in salmon and 600 galets of cast iron for great serpentines, 200 pavises with rests, 250 ridged pavises, 400 shields, 8,000 hand bows, 10,000 dozen arrows, 4,000 dozen bow strings, 12,000 crossbow bolts, 10,000 bolts of crenequin, barrels of powder and rope of Antwerp, 500 youges, 600 spears, 4,500 lead maces, 6,000 pikes, 1,200 lance shafts, 1,000 shafts of demi-lances, 1,200 batons chargois, 1,000 javelin shafts, 400 jacks for sappers, 300 sallets or iron bonnets, 1,000 spades, 600 iron shod shovels, 400 bill hooks, 300 wooden shovels, 1,000 pickaxes, 500 mattocks, 1,000 axes, 1,000 sickles, a windmill, 1,200 hand mills, 1,000 feet of bridge consisting of <wood, ouzieres, cherchles, iron work, rails, beams, sommiers and other things serving to the said bridge> and needing at least 100 carts, rope, iron work and menuites for the carpenters, rope for the carters, tallow of provision, the forge stuff, large hand lanterns, iron crowbars, saltpetre, sulphur and pitch [resin], sheets of iron, copper wire, leather sacks, nails, lanterns and bellows, patterns for the serpentines and lance heads, bags and tools of the carpenters, bags and tools of the carters, bags of the cannoneers, the houses of the Duke for which is needed 7 carts, 3 pavilions, and a tent for the Duke, 400 pavilions for the companies of the ordonnance and the gentlemen of the household of the Duke, 350 new sheds/stables, 26 tents with 2 poles, 7 pieces of tents for the Duke’s stable, 2 tents for the watch, 16 other pieces of tents and pavilions serving for the masters, lieutenants, receiver, controller and aides of the said artillery, canvas of the garrison, rope, nails, screws, wire, poles and about 2,000 tent pegs, ladders, leather boats, grappling irons, the blockhouse made at Malines, bags of the masters, lieutenants, receiver, controller and nobles helping with the said artillery. For the transport of all this artillery, it will be useful to have 5,245 horses, without counting those necessary for the transport of the powder, at the rate of 4 sols per day per horse, the expense for the transport of the artillery will be 1,049 livres per day. Men necessary for the making and moving of this artillery: 6 master bombardiers, 6 other cannoneers or bombardiers to fire the 6 bombardelles, 6 cannoneers for the 6 mortars, 20 others for the 9 courtaux and the 15 large serpentines, 40 others for the medium and small serpentines, 50 culveriners to fire the arquebuses, 14 cannoneers’ and bombardiers’ aides, Amand Millon, master carpenter, 8 carpenters on horseback, 95 carpenters on foot, master Wouters Teytin, master carter, 20 carters on foot, 50 servants, 45 assistant armourers, a master joiner for the houses of the Duke, 4 joiners under his orders, 2 other assistants to carry wood, 4 stretchers of tents, 20 carpenters for tents and pavilions, 200 other stretchers of tents, 400 sappers, 2 master farriers, 4 farriers, 1 master cutter of stone, 6 assistant stone cutters, 3 assistant founders of plummets, 8 sailors for the boats, 4 millers, 50 miners, 24 assistants on horse back aides of the artillery. Total of the wages of men necessary to service the artillery: 201 livres 9 sols per day. General total with the expenses for carriage 1,250 livres 9 sols per day.



In the french text the sappers are called pioneers so I take it they did the work clearing the way.

Quote:
Equipment for sappers and miners
Next comes a list of equipment for mining, trench digging and for sappers in general, table 3.
_________________________________________
Table 3 Equipment for sappers and miners
_________________________________________
400 jacks for sappers 300 wooden shovels
300 sallets or iron bonnets 1,000 pickaxes
1,000 spades 500 mattocks
600 iron shod shovels 1,000 axes
400 bill hooks 1,000 sickles





Quote:
Table 7 Other personnel
_______________________________________
Amand Millon – master carpenter
8 carpenters on horseback
95 carpenters on foot
Master Wouters Teytin – master carter
20 carters on foot
50 servants
45 assistant armourers
A master joiner for the houses of the Duke
4 joiners under his orders
2 other assistants to carry wood
4 stretchers of tents
20 carpenters for tents and pavilions
200 other stretchers of tents
400 sappers
2 master farriers
4 farriers
1 master cutter of stone
6 assistant stone cutters
3 assistant founders of plummets
8 sailors for the boats
4 millers
50 miners
24 assistants on horseback – aides of the artillery
Total 953






http://www.dielanden.nl/deelgenootschap/Compa...stics.html
View user's profile Send private message
Kirk K.





Joined: 24 May 2016

Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 1:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Roman soldiers were incredibly tough, no doubt. Instead of having a dedicated labor force the Romans simply increased the number of troops in an expeditionary force to cover labor requirements. That is a painfully expensive way to do it, but Rome could afford it. It does have advantages.
View user's profile Send private message
Kirk K.





Joined: 24 May 2016

Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 2:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter B. wrote:
Perhaps this is of some interest to you guys.

Quote:
State of that which could make the expense of the artillery that my very redoubtable and sovereign lord the Duke intends to take with him at the present time,: as he prescribes in his letters, consisting of 6 bombards, as many of iron as of metal, 6 mantlets for the said bombards, 6 sleds serving to the said mantlets, 12 stone balls for bombards, 6 bombardelles, 6 medium mantlets, 7 sleds for them, 12 stone balls for bombardelles, 6 mortars, 12 mortar stones, the serpentine Lambillon, 100 boulets for it, mantlets for trenches for mines, 10 courtaux, 2,000 stone balls for the said courtaux, 10 great serpentines, 3 serpentines: of l’hotel, 2 Jacquin serpentines and a serpentine of: Montlhery, 36 medium serpentines, 48 small serpentines, 200 arquebuses, 40,000 livres of lead as much in balls as in salmon and 600 galets of cast iron for great serpentines, 200 pavises with rests, 250 ridged pavises, 400 shields, 8,000 hand bows, 10,000 dozen arrows, 4,000 dozen bow strings, 12,000 crossbow bolts, 10,000 bolts of crenequin, barrels of powder and rope of Antwerp, 500 youges, 600 spears, 4,500 lead maces, 6,000 pikes, 1,200 lance shafts, 1,000 shafts of demi-lances, 1,200 batons chargois, 1,000 javelin shafts, 400 jacks for sappers, 300 sallets or iron bonnets, 1,000 spades, 600 iron shod shovels, 400 bill hooks, 300 wooden shovels, 1,000 pickaxes, 500 mattocks, 1,000 axes, 1,000 sickles, a windmill, 1,200 hand mills, 1,000 feet of bridge consisting of <wood, ouzieres, cherchles, iron work, rails, beams, sommiers and other things serving to the said bridge> and needing at least 100 carts, rope, iron work and menuites for the carpenters, rope for the carters, tallow of provision, the forge stuff, large hand lanterns, iron crowbars, saltpetre, sulphur and pitch [resin], sheets of iron, copper wire, leather sacks, nails, lanterns and bellows, patterns for the serpentines and lance heads, bags and tools of the carpenters, bags and tools of the carters, bags of the cannoneers, the houses of the Duke for which is needed 7 carts, 3 pavilions, and a tent for the Duke, 400 pavilions for the companies of the ordonnance and the gentlemen of the household of the Duke, 350 new sheds/stables, 26 tents with 2 poles, 7 pieces of tents for the Duke’s stable, 2 tents for the watch, 16 other pieces of tents and pavilions serving for the masters, lieutenants, receiver, controller and aides of the said artillery, canvas of the garrison, rope, nails, screws, wire, poles and about 2,000 tent pegs, ladders, leather boats, grappling irons, the blockhouse made at Malines, bags of the masters, lieutenants, receiver, controller and nobles helping with the said artillery. For the transport of all this artillery, it will be useful to have 5,245 horses, without counting those necessary for the transport of the powder, at the rate of 4 sols per day per horse, the expense for the transport of the artillery will be 1,049 livres per day. Men necessary for the making and moving of this artillery: 6 master bombardiers, 6 other cannoneers or bombardiers to fire the 6 bombardelles, 6 cannoneers for the 6 mortars, 20 others for the 9 courtaux and the 15 large serpentines, 40 others for the medium and small serpentines, 50 culveriners to fire the arquebuses, 14 cannoneers’ and bombardiers’ aides, Amand Millon, master carpenter, 8 carpenters on horseback, 95 carpenters on foot, master Wouters Teytin, master carter, 20 carters on foot, 50 servants, 45 assistant armourers, a master joiner for the houses of the Duke, 4 joiners under his orders, 2 other assistants to carry wood, 4 stretchers of tents, 20 carpenters for tents and pavilions, 200 other stretchers of tents, 400 sappers, 2 master farriers, 4 farriers, 1 master cutter of stone, 6 assistant stone cutters, 3 assistant founders of plummets, 8 sailors for the boats, 4 millers, 50 miners, 24 assistants on horse back aides of the artillery. Total of the wages of men necessary to service the artillery: 201 livres 9 sols per day. General total with the expenses for carriage 1,250 livres 9 sols per day.



In the french text the sappers are called pioneers so I take it they did the work clearing the way.

Quote:
Equipment for sappers and miners
Next comes a list of equipment for mining, trench digging and for sappers in general, table 3.
_________________________________________
Table 3 Equipment for sappers and miners
_________________________________________
400 jacks for sappers 300 wooden shovels
300 sallets or iron bonnets 1,000 pickaxes
1,000 spades 500 mattocks
600 iron shod shovels 1,000 axes
400 bill hooks 1,000 sickles





Quote:
Table 7 Other personnel
_______________________________________
Amand Millon – master carpenter
8 carpenters on horseback
95 carpenters on foot
Master Wouters Teytin – master carter
20 carters on foot
50 servants
45 assistant armourers
A master joiner for the houses of the Duke
4 joiners under his orders
2 other assistants to carry wood
4 stretchers of tents
20 carpenters for tents and pavilions
200 other stretchers of tents
400 sappers
2 master farriers
4 farriers
1 master cutter of stone
6 assistant stone cutters
3 assistant founders of plummets
8 sailors for the boats
4 millers
50 miners
24 assistants on horseback – aides of the artillery
Total 953

http://www.dielanden.nl/deelgenootschap/Compa...stics.html
Thanks! That is a good illustration of the scale of the resources required to mount a major military campaign.
View user's profile Send private message
Kirk K.





Joined: 24 May 2016

Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 2:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
In fact, keeping your soldiers busy with manual labor has always been an important tool for maintaining discipline. Letting a massive body of armed and combat trained people grow bored and restless for lack of activity is a sure fire recipe for trouble.
'Keeping them busy' =/= grinding them into the ground with endless brutal work.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 6:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kirk K. wrote:
Roman soldiers were incredibly tough, no doubt. Instead of having a dedicated labor force the Romans simply increased the number of troops in an expeditionary force to cover labor requirements. That is a painfully expensive way to do it, but Rome could afford it. It does have advantages.


What? Where on earth do you get that idea?? Roman soldiers were trained and disciplined, but getting work out of them was not a big deal because they all came from the working classes! There is absolutely NO suggestion anywhere in ancient literature that the Romans had to field more troops just to "cover labor requirements". There was certainly a contingent of pioneers, just like in that medieval example, for clearing obstacles, laying out the camp, etc., but these were regular front-line troops simply detailed to that particular task.

Quote:
'Keeping them busy' =/= grinding them into the ground with endless brutal work.


Right, because there *wasn't* any "endless brutal work"! Besides, if your peasant labor force is so brutally worked, wouldn't you have to replace them every couple days?

I'm sorry, but how hard do you think it is to walk along an unpaved road and build a camp fire?

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 7:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Archer's defensive positions         Reply with quote

Kirk K. wrote:
In many battles units of archers would set up defensive fighting positions. A flat area of packed earth was needed to provide a stable platform for the archers to fire from. Dug-out dirt, rocks and debris was stacked into a berm at the front of the fighting position. Sharpened stakes were placed at the front of the berm.
[...]
Since fighting positions could be and occasionally were overrun by the enemy, weapons other than the bow were obviously required.


... and it's better for those weapons to be wielded by armoured infantry protecting the archers, rather than the archers themselves. In that way, the archers can shoot at short range into the enemy. At least in some places (e.g., Japan), the expected engagement range of archers was very short ("less than 40 paces", "at 15 metres"). For that, you want good protection.

A raised platform might be good. Permanent fortifications will provide this, but quickly-built field works could do the same.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 8:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shrewsbury was an archers battle to begin with lots of waiting and assembly before it happened but there were no real fixed defenses and in the end, the high ground was flanked. There was a pea field between them, so either could have considered that an obstacle or benefit.

Many English battles and skirmishes seemed to be fairly fluid, The big shots showing up for work after a good bed and breakfast.

Cheers

Edit to add that an example of supply and troops issues is apparent with Edward determined to conquer Wales in the late 13th century. Ironically or not, loaned Welsh and Shropshire archers that helped carry the day at Orewin Bridge against the main body of the Welsh forces (who had the high ground).

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 9:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Kirk K. wrote:
Roman soldiers were incredibly tough, no doubt. Instead of having a dedicated labor force the Romans simply increased the number of troops in an expeditionary force to cover labor requirements. That is a painfully expensive way to do it, but Rome could afford it. It does have advantages.


What? Where on earth do you get that idea?? Roman soldiers were trained and disciplined, but getting work out of them was not a big deal because they all came from the working classes! There is absolutely NO suggestion anywhere in ancient literature that the Romans had to field more troops just to "cover labor requirements". There was certainly a contingent of pioneers, just like in that medieval example, for clearing obstacles, laying out the camp, etc., but these were regular front-line troops simply detailed to that particular task.

Quote:
'Keeping them busy' =/= grinding them into the ground with endless brutal work.


Right, because there *wasn't* any "endless brutal work"! Besides, if your peasant labor force is so brutally worked, wouldn't you have to replace them every couple days?

I'm sorry, but how hard do you think it is to walk along an unpaved road and build a camp fire?

Matthew

Yeah, wasn't Roman military tax revenue percentage drastically increase post Marian reform because on of the things Marius implemented was soldiers that could even afford to pay for there own basic equipment, essentially the poorest Roman citizens, to join the Roman Army? Didn't that period also the widespread adoption of the Fucal, essentially a equipment attachment staff, to lower the amount of baggage trains and laborers need to follow the army, because accompanying bagge trains and laborers increase a armies vulnerability to raids. Does he think the Roman built those nice roadways as they were in process of trying to conquer a place?
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2016 4:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kirk K. wrote:
Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
In fact, keeping your soldiers busy with manual labor has always been an important tool for maintaining discipline. Letting a massive body of armed and combat trained people grow bored and restless for lack of activity is a sure fire recipe for trouble.
'Keeping them busy' =/= grinding them into the ground with endless brutal work.

What "endless brutal work" are you talking about, exactly? Building encampments and temporary fortifications was hardly backbreaking trudgery, and it's everyday SOP for a lot of modern soldiers, too. The Roman legionnaires didn't need to be "incredibly tough" - they were very well organized and disciplined, but the work was no harder and often lighter than everyday rural life back home.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Gill





Joined: 19 Feb 2015

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2016 3:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

accidental double post

Last edited by Andrew Gill on Mon 30 May, 2016 3:47 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Gill





Joined: 19 Feb 2015

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2016 3:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Andrew Gill wrote:
Kirk K. wrote:
Pieter B. wrote:
Perhaps this is of some interest to you guys.
...
Quote:
Equipment for sappers and miners
Next comes a list of equipment for mining, trench digging and for sappers in general, table 3.
_________________________________________
Table 3 Equipment for sappers and miners
_________________________________________
400 jacks for sappers 300 wooden shovels
300 sallets or iron bonnets 1,000 pickaxes
1,000 spades 500 mattocks
600 iron shod shovels 1,000 axes
400 bill hooks 1,000 sickles





Quote:
Table 7 Other personnel
_______________________________________
Amand Millon – master carpenter
8 carpenters on horseback
95 carpenters on foot
Master Wouters Teytin – master carter
20 carters on foot
50 servants
45 assistant armourers
A master joiner for the houses of the Duke
4 joiners under his orders
2 other assistants to carry wood
4 stretchers of tents
20 carpenters for tents and pavilions
200 other stretchers of tents
400 sappers
2 master farriers
4 farriers
1 master cutter of stone
6 assistant stone cutters
3 assistant founders of plummets
8 sailors for the boats
4 millers
50 miners
24 assistants on horseback – aides of the artillery
Total 953

http://www.dielanden.nl/deelgenootschap/Compa...stics.html
Thanks! That is a good illustration of the scale of the resources required to mount a major military campaign.



Pieter, thanks that is indeed very interesting. A question: is this for just the artillery train or for the whole army? From the article which you linked to, I presume the former.

Kirk, if you look at that list of support personnel, you will see that most are skilled specialists, not ignorant near-slaves conscripted to do mindless hard labour. You have a few masters of each craft supervising a larger number of journeymen and apprentices under them, as usual in medieval and Renaissance society. Of course any army needs quite a few skilled support personnel. The soldiers are not all going to be armourers, carpenters, tent-makers or sailors. But as I suspected and others have confirmed, unskilled labour would usually be supplied by the soldiers.

Then, assuming that I am correct that the above list refers specifically to the artillery train (including the troops detailed to defend the guns) it is important to bear in mind that artillery has significantly different and larger support requirements to a group of archers, billmen or pikemen, where I would expect to see fewer specialist craftsmen per company of fighting men.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2016 1:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kirk K. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
"Stable platform"? I'm outside my strong area, but never heard of that! It's not like soft ground or wet grass was too wobbly to shoot from, was it?
As always, it depends. If your targets are close or packed in tight, footing for the archer is less of an issue. You will likely be firing en masse in that situation anyways. And in setting up a hasty fighting position you obviously will not have the time to make it pretty.

But in a large battle an archer may be in his fighting position for days. Just the movement in that confined area over an extended period of time will churn the soil into mud. Firing with relatively dry, stable footing as compared to a mud pit is definitely less tiring and allows for greater accuracy. Also keep in mind that the archer would likely be living and sleeping in this position. Better to just build it right the first time so you do not have to worry about it at some critical moment in the battle.


I think you're conflating the hasty defensive positions established by English archers prior to battles like Crecy and Poitiers (with an emphasis on "hasty") and the more extensive works made to house and protect archers in prolonged sieges. Large medieval European battles rarely lasted for days -- if the matter wasn't resolved by nightfall, one side usually made use of the darkness to retreat to a more advantageous position. And when archers dug pits and planted stakes in battlefield position, it was usually to the front and flanks of their actual shooting positions -- they didn't fight standing in the pits or among the stakes, probably because that would have made command and control too difficult for their commanders.

On the other hand, when they settled down for sieges, they didn't just build "fighting positions." They erected camps and some sort of fortifications, often to the extent of building wooden siege castles (known as "boulevards" during the Hundred Years' War) to block the principal avenues of approach into the besieged place.


Kirk K. wrote:
Alan E wrote:
Re. Archers needing dry stable soil to shoot from (please please, not fire! You only fire your bow after it breaks): There are several records in HYW at least (and probably elsewhere/when) of archers being deployed in marshy ground. The defensive position archers needed was one where cavalry couldn't ride them down and fully armoured men at arms were unable to frontally assault them. Where such defenses occurred naturally, they made use of them (woods, hedges, marshes, steeply rising ground), where natural defenses were inadequate they could be (and were) augmented or substituted for with man-made defenses (pot-holes, caltrops, fascines, sharpened stakes etc). Ground firm enough for a lightly armoured archer to not sink was required, marshy enough for a fully armoured man to struggle and to stop a horse cantering was an advantage.
I at no time said that great footing was required, so that is merely a strawman. Yes, of course sometimes the tactical advantages of terrain outweigh the drawbacks of wet, less firm ground. That in no way says that firm, stable, level, relatively dry ground for archers was not an optimum situation a commander would strive to achieve.


Not by engineering, though! They just picked ground that was already reasonably firm and level rather than digging or piling the earth and packing it to make a level position, let alone building up the earth into a berm in front of the position. Remember that archers (I presume we're talking about English archers during the HYW here) were routinely expected to engage in hand-to-hand combat once they ran out of arrows and/or when the enemy was sufficiently weakened that archers charging in from the flank could break their morale. Building up a berm, breastworks, or whatever would have prevented them from doing this very effectively. A field of stakes, on the other hand, was a very different matter -- the stakes were planted at an angle pointing towards the enemy, so they weren't such an obstacle to the archers charging through from the "wrong" direction, so to say. And while this meant they wouldn't have stopped the enemy dead the way a berm or low wall could have, that wasn't necessary as long as they could encourage the enemy to funnel themselves into the stake-free gap manned by the English men-at-arms in the centre -- and if any of the enemy infantry tried to get through the stakes, they'd be slowed down enough that they'd be easy prey to the archers' shooting. The rule that "an obstacle not covered by fire is not an obstacle" was as true back then as it is today.

When they did perform extensive engineering, they just made full-fledged siege camps or castles altogether.


Kirk K. wrote:
I would submit that muster roles were only used for levies of peasants meant to be fighting men, which would explain why such records are rare. After all, if you brought along peasants to do the necessary scut work but not combat would you really place such workers on a muster role? Yet as I said, I seriously doubt any major military campaigns were launched without a significant force of such non-combatants; precisely the peasant levies I have been talking about.


No, no, no. We actually have extensive records for the recruitment of non-combatant menial labourers in medieval armies! These were usually recruited on a temporary basis when there was a need for some major engineering project (like building or repairing a bridge, building or repairing fortifications, building or repairing siegeworks). And their numbers were recorded, the names of their leaders/foremen often recorded, and in many cases their pay was recorded! We're really talking about professional labourers here -- and that was the reality of medieval non-combatant "peasant levies." Their recruitment and administration was far from haphazard and often had much in common with the management of construction labour today.

Of course, that's when we're talking of large projects that required the temporary recruitment of large numbers of men. This kind of large labour force was normally only used when an army could (or had to) sit in fixed positions for long periods. So what about the hangers-on and camp followers that tagged along with a mobile army? Sure, there were usually fairly large numbers of them. In many cases the noncombatants outnumbered the combatants. But records weren't entirely silent about them. As Alan and Pieter had pointed out, a very large proportion of them were actually skilled, professional, well-paid craftsmen -- sometimes better paid than the soldiers themselves! And then there were the servants in the retinues of the nobles, gentlemen, and men-at-arms; sometimes they were listed individually, sometimes they were lumped together with the rest of the retinue (including the combatants), but what's really important is that medieval admnistrators actually took care to record these servants' presence and activities as far as they realistically could because they weren't just random or disposable levies -- they were paid and useful non-combatant/civilian staff in the army (leaving alone the fact that distinctions between "civilian" and "military" were very blurry back then).

So yes, if you say the soldiers were "very well served," the fact is they were.


On the other hand, I also have to agree with the people who think that you're seriously underestimating soldiers' capacity for manual labour. Soldiers today are regularly expected to march all night, engineer whatever place they end up in into workable defences before dawn, and then stand-to for hours before they are allowed to sleep around midday -- only to pack up before dusk (often dismantling some of the defences they had established the night before!), stand-to around sunset, and move out again once it gets properly dark. Sometimes they have to work all day to prepare extensive field fortifications and then man it for most of the night before getting a couple of hours of sleep the next day if they're lucky. Even in garrison they're kept busy with groundskeeping and janitorial tasks. There are some very very good reasons for this, one of the most important being that physically fit men with plenty of weapons around but nothing to do often end up with pointless (and needlessly fatal or at least injurious) quarrels breaking all over the place
View user's profile Send private message
Joseph Flanagan




Location: Portland, OR
Joined: 19 Feb 2015

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue 07 Jun, 2016 12:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

We need to stop this idea that archers were part of some peasant army. They were well paid, highly trained killers. That is it. Some did well in war, others died (Speaking of the English). I can't speak for other cultures that praised the bow such as the Polish.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Archer's defensive positions
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum