Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > "Armati" and other problems with english military statutes Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Joined: 14 Mar 2015

Posts: 222

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject: "Armati" and other problems with english military         Reply with quote

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)?
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




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

Posts: 2,635

PostPosted: Thu 07 Sep, 2017 10:39 am    Post subject: Re: "Armati" and other problems with english milit         Reply with quote

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?
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Joined: 14 Mar 2015

Posts: 222

PostPosted: Fri 08 Sep, 2017 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: "Armati" and other problems with english milit         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
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.


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.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,083

PostPosted: Fri 08 Sep, 2017 3:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




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

Posts: 2,635

PostPosted: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 12:40 am    Post subject: Re: "Armati" and other problems with english milit         Reply with quote

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:
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 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).
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




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

Posts: 2,635

PostPosted: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 12:40 am    Post subject: Re: "Armati" and other problems with english milit         Reply with quote

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:
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 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).
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,083

PostPosted: Mon 11 Sep, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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, Wink 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
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,083

PostPosted: Tue 12 Sep, 2017 9:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,418

PostPosted: Tue 12 Sep, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,083

PostPosted: Tue 12 Sep, 2017 5:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > "Armati" and other problems with english military statutes
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
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 2003-2017 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum