[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

I have this interest at understanding how common armor was for the non-noble, non Men-at-Arms, were. Which places had well-armoured armies and which didn't. Sometimes sources tell us so: the Welsh, the Cornish and the Irish being prevalently unarmoured; though at some point, apparently, welsh soldiers in the War of Roses were as just as well armored as their English counterparts (Graham Turner gave me this observation when commenting on his painting of the Battle of Mortimer Cross).

As far as I'm concerned, since the 14th century, English infantry had larger demands on infantry armor than what we know from Spain; if you consider the Ordinance of Burgos in Castille (1385, post-defeat at Aljubarrota), only cavalry (jinetes and MAA) was required to have armor. In Portugal the first references I know of, from 1420-1440, says only the aquantiados em besta de garruncha (cavalry crossbowmen) were to afford some armor. The rest basically and helmet and random plate pieces.

Even though, I found this strange reference of Fernão Lopes and the franciscan Frei Pedro's description of the Portuguese victory at the battle of Aljubarrota (1385), saying the were so bad armed that:

"The one who had a coat (mail) didn't have a loudel (sleeveless gambeson), and the one who didn't have a panceira (a plackart, or in this case a cuirass) didn't had arm harness, and many of them with bascinets without visors. So long as their arms being divided, it wouldn't equip a third of the people"
Source: Vestidos para matar, o armamento de guerra na cronística portuguesa de quatrocentos. pp. 69.

Since the authors were saying the Portuguese foot was badly armed, the Castillian one was supposed to be even better, though the month's later Ordinance of Burgos didn't require any. My question is: there is really a difference of equipment between different nations' equipment? Like the Swedish foot being best armed than the Scottish one, the Italian being suberbly armed, and such?

[Anthony Clipsom]

There's a lot of detail we could go into on this one, as there are records of this sort of thing. Probably others will. But a quick reply on some basics.

Firstly, who are we talking about? Most communities seem to have had men with a variety of levels of kit, dependent in large part on their wealth and social status. Most military sytems allowed for selective levies, so the best kitted out might march off to join an expedition leaving the less well equipped behind for home defence and continuing the local economy. So, just because some lesser members of the community were poorly equipped, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the military effort of that place, which saw these only as soldiers of last resort. Or they might have a secondary military role. Italian communal armies had poorly equipped auxiliaries whose expected role was to burn and break things and terrorise peasants , not fight proper soldiers.

Second, laws on equipment usually set a minimum. So, if you had a certain income, you had to have certain kit. But the bands could be quite wide. take this Scottish law from 1318

It is ordained and agreed that any layman of the realm having £10 in goods shall have for his body in defence of the realm a sufficient haketon [a leather jacket, probably reinforced with mail] , a basinet [a light helmet with a rounded or pointed top] , gloves of plate, a spear and a sword.
Anyone who does not have a haketon and basinet shall have a good habergeon [a short coat of mail] or a good iron for his body, an iron hat and gloves of plate. The king also instructs that all men owning a cow and goods shall have a good spear or a good bow with a sheaf of 24 arrows.

The £10 man is well kitted out, but the cow owner has a pointy stick. What happens between? Men presumably turned up with what they had. If a man with £5 in goods turned up with a haketon and a kettle hat would they turn him away? I doubt it.

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

I mean, usually most of the generic armies that people from a large spectrum of wealth. But some regions, as I understood had better armies due to their better economic condition.

You mentioned, for example, Scottish ordinances, they work similarly to other systems, the wealthier you are, the more you bring. But on the occasion of a scottish army being raised, which group would be more prevalent? Because even English Statutes of late 13th century requires poor people to own at least a sword, or dagger or bow. But the general impression I got is that only people armed with gambeson, helmet, sword and buckler would be actually eligible to serve; a reason that might explain why welsh participation in latter battles of the HYW was severely decreased. And even still, if sword and buckler was required, why the sources from Agincourt says archers were armed with pick-hammers, hand axes and such?

Considering Scotland was a poor kingdom (even Venetian espionage admit so), the minimum acceptable for footmen would be the same or probably less than the English? As far as I know, Scotland never fielded more than 200-300 men-at-arms in a battle, the reason why the knights eventually dismounted and fought on the front-lines (where their heavy armor would make a good vanguard). Of course, Scotland had rich people, but less rich people than in France and England, so I would think their armor condition would be more deplorable.

But this doesn't see to be so linear: Swedish militia is often considered to be relatively well-armoured and well trained for foot-soldier. So much to endure the challenge of German mercenaries under the Danish King's orders; and it seens that Denmark didn't have a tradition of local troops to fight in wars (according to a danish enthusiast I know), so the King would simply buy Germans to do the job.

By the way, I didn't know about Italian forager troops. In Portugal we had almogavars, but I'm no specialist to say about numbers.

[Anthony Clipsom]

Like all medieval armies, the make up of a Scots one depended on what sort of army it was. The Scots had a massed levy, the Common Army, like other nations. But, if a major noble was sanctioned to conduct a raid in force into England, it would be unlikely to include the men of the cow-owning variety. The first call would probably be on retainers and wealthier tenants who would have, if not a legal obligation, then a social one. So, a smaller force of better equipped men would be seen.

As to numbers of men-at-arms, Scotland put 2,000 into the field several times in the 14th century.

[Randall Moffett]

Pedro,

So I have tons on this subject and I would generally agree that England leads the way with basic arms reqs compared to most places but by the 14th these regulations are getting more and more common. In Italy, Scotland, England, France, Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia and other place,s especially in towns and cities arms and armour were often required. Scandinavia seems to have such rules in order pretty early on as well. Henry II seems to be a major mover in this respect. I am working on a book that will include tons on this but its not done. I have a few articles soon to come out as well. All on England late medieval period. In the meantime...

Take a look at these, especially the London and York equipment section for some good ideas.
https://scciowa.academia.edu/RandallMoffett

As to Scotland you have to be very, very careful with such statements. Poor in general true but the problem is that some of the areas are markedly wealthier than others. So if say 70-75% of the kingdoms wealth is in one region then even if the country was poorer than others in total doesn't mean it would not have funds for such gear. IN fact after reviewing religious houses in Scotland I see no evidence that they were poor, many much richer in fact than many of their neighbors. In general it looks like the holdings just were more consolidated there to provide the required wealth. This would allow for comparable arms and armour for esate ownners and tenants. The real issues in the wealthier regions there are the constant warfare which diminished the value of lands and rents. but even wealthy places like France experience that during say the 100 years war. This was of course on both sides. England was ripped apart too on the other side of the border.

Scotland's biggest issues were limited good agricultural land in a largely agricultural economy and low population. England had 3.5-7 million or so during much of the high to late medieval period. Medieval Scotland never likely broke the million mark in the period, if it did it was likely about 1 million tops. My guess is mostly 500-750k.

It certainly could raise cavalry but compared to England that gets harder. As Anthony said you do see some formidable forces raised of men at arms, they send thousands to France in the 15th as well. I'd not write them down. For a number of periods in the 14th and 15th centuries the lowland Scots give the England some of their worst enemies.

So I doubt you could make the argument arms and armour were exactly poor just due to less robust economies entirely as in this case you have areas under immense threat where men would be given more incentive to spend more on war.

Best,

RPM

[Luka Borscak]

[Anthony Clipsom]

[Luka Borscak]

[Iagoba Ferreira]

Hard to say.

In the lower nobility wars in northern Castille in the late middle ages, you get a glimpse, while explaining loot, or when saying something like "he was trowing a javelin and a crossbow bolt entered through the armpit" from where you must imagine that he was wearing armour and was bad luck (a problem bulletproof vests have too). And that in the best down to earth sources we have...

Sadly, even middle class inventories or wills are scarce.

[Randall Moffett]

As to the original text of the parliament of 1318 I can almost assure all of you it's not a leather jerkin with or without mail. The paltry evidence we have for such objects in medieval Europe (or the Islamic world) do not seem to be used in connection to the term aketon usually. There were some funny ideas in the 19th into the 20th century like that but academics have largely gone far away from that. We have several contemporary documents including make of these and leather and mail fit into none I am aware of. There are a few accounts of aketons with leather facings but not used alone. The words used are not right how they have translated them perhaps but when compared to contemporary usage they follow typical norms. Aketons, as in a textile armour likely padded, mail shirt and likely a pair of plates.

It states unam sufficientem aketonam which would be a sufficient aketon or unum bonum hobirgellum vel unum bonum ferrum.

The aketon seems likely simply to be an aketon by all accounts but the way they translate the second part of think is wrong. I suspect the sufficient aketon is a stand alone textile armour by the words and way this is worded or a habergeon or a good iron plate which to me indicates a pair of plates. I have not seen good iron referred to in this way as a mail shirt and it seems superfluous but have seen good iron plates mentioned as pairs of plates in period texts. So my guess is, aketon, mail shirt or pair of plates quality for torso armour for a guy with ten pounds.

So I see you are not arguing this is but for clarity and how commoners would be armoured...



Iagoba,

We are fortunate a few collections of Wills have remained fr this period for England. London has a fairly health sample for the 14th century.

RPM

[Randall Moffett]

I should mention there are some funny issues with the term jack though.... It must have been declared a term for all torso armour not plate but at times included smaller plates... never mind. It is just a funny work in period.

RPM

[Anthony Clipsom]

Thanks Randall

For those wishing to read this for themselves, probably the best online edition is this

English : https://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1318
Latin : https://www.rps.ac.uk/mss/1318/9

The use of a good "iron" is indeed odd - as Randall says it is usually Pair of Plates or Plates plural. The translation pointed to above goes for coat of mail but why say that after haubergeon, rather than hauberk?

That said, there are plenty of odd uses of armour terms in the 14th century elsewhere - a tendency to use a "we all know what we mean" approach that frustrates modern historians

However, we didn't set out to discuss Scots armour (though I could happily do so) but common soldiers kit. We have numerous regulations, muster records, inventories, legal documents that can be called on from across Europe. Let us not become bogged down in answering the question.

[Anthony Clipsom]

To move pedro's quest on, here is a particularly detailed English muster list from Norwich in 1355.

http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/floril...5.html#n05

Norwich was a major city in the Middle Ages, so this represents quite a wealthy community. What we can see here is the workings out of the Statute of Winchester 1285, as modernised in the first half of the 14th century. In particular, the class of half-armed men fit definitions of armati or hobilars from that period. Note incidentally the similarities to the £10 man from the Scots regulations.

The word "plate" appears again. The commentator has glossed this as breastplate but we might also suggest this means a pair of plates again. There is also an error in the meaning of "pisa" - not part of a breastplate but a pisane or mail gorget.

I hope this demonstrates a good idea of what common arms might be available in England at this time.

Add : In case of confusion, a wy-axe is a battle axe (from ME wi = battle, combat). Presumably to distinguish from a tool.

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Dan Howard]

[Anthony Clipsom]

[Anthony Clipsom]

[Dan Howard]

We collected a lot of the Scottish sources together in this thread
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...p;t=178394

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Anthony Clipsom]