| Author |
Message |
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
 Posted: Sun 25 Oct, 2015 11:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | That's really a very broad timeframe -- too broad for any kind of useful generalisation. Besides, all the items you mentioned (shields, caparisons, surcoats/jupons/lentners/whatever) didn't always carry the wearer's personal or unit heraldry; sometimes they were just a plain colour, and sometimes they bore unrelated symbold. |
Let's say 14th until mid. 15th centuries' England and France.
Also, I also had never asked before, but what were the origins of Men-at-Arms in battles as Agincourt? What was approximately the proportions of these origins, for example, if there were more than squires than sergeants and so ...
By the way, how they recruited sergeants at that time? They came from households o or were recruited by levies?
|
|
  |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Nov, 2015 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Quote: | | That's really a very broad timeframe -- too broad for any kind of useful generalisation. Besides, all the items you mentioned (shields, caparisons, surcoats/jupons/lentners/whatever) didn't always carry the wearer's personal or unit heraldry; sometimes they were just a plain colour, and sometimes they bore unrelated symbold. |
Let's say 14th until mid. 15th centuries' England and France. |
Try looking up Effigies and Brasses, then. The 14th and early 15th centuries were a transitional era where fashions in armorial garments came and went very quickly, going from the classic High Medieval surcoat at the beginning of the 14th century to the cyclas and then the shorter jupon or coat-armour or what have you.
| Quote: | | Also, I also had never asked before, but what were the origins of Men-at-Arms in battles as Agincourt? What was approximately the proportions of these origins, for example, if there were more than squires than sergeants and so ... |
It'd probably take a book to explain that. Come to think of it, I think Anne Curry wrote one.
| Quote: | | By the way, how they recruited sergeants at that time? They came from households o or were recruited by levies? |
That's another can of worms. I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but serjeants are a confusing bunch because medieval records rarely drew a clear distinction between "serjeant" as a legal-tenurial term and "serjeant" as a military term. Both usages of the term were fading by the 14th century, however. Tenurial serjeants increasingly became socage tenants on the lower end of the spectrum and were gradually absorbed into the knightly social class at the upper end. Military serjeants were being replaced by more specific role-based classifications.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Thu 31 Dec, 2015 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Try looking up Effigies and Brasses, then. The 14th and early 15th centuries were a transitional era where fashions in armorial garments came and went very quickly, going from the classic High Medieval surcoat at the beginning of the 14th century to the cyclas and then the shorter jupon or coat-armour or what have you. |
Coat-armour is the padded garment of Black Prince's armour?
What is the difference between a surcoat and a cyclas? Cyclas would be something like this?
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Thu 31 Dec, 2015 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, about effigies. I noticed a kind of garment, worn especially in the late fourteenth century. But the difference is that it has a specific shape, like if it had an armor in on it.
This could be the so called Corazzina? I barely see them in representations (only a picture of an Osprey's English Knight. They were never popular?
Another inconvenient question. Why it seems that England and France were slow to adopt the plate innovations like Armoured surcoats and Coats of Plates? I only see representations of Armoured surcoats among german mercenaries, while Coats of Plates seem to have been more common in the Netherlands and Italy. Any specific reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 31 Dec, 2015 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | This could be the so called Corazzina? I barely see them in representations (only a picture of an Osprey's English Knight. They were never popular?
|
This armour is a fantasy dreamed up by Bashford Dean. He literally cut up valuable pieces of armour that he acquired from Chalcis (the acquisition of which was pretty dodgy) to complete his idea of a 14th C harness. Firstly the original helmet was rusted off at the vervelles, so Dean welded a plate of metal around the bottom to conform to his fantasy of what it should look like. The shoulder spaulders are made from some random Chalcis plates that he couldn't find a use for so he cut them up and bent them to fit. The coat of plates is even worse. The lung plates are original (they are 15th-16th century, not 14th) but the rest is assembled from random plates from Chalcis that were cut up and riveted in place. This armour won't let you bend at the waist because the skirt is completely wrong and I'd be surprised if you could lift your arm above shoulder height. The back is the worst part and the MET deliberately displays this monstrosity in a location where you can only see the front. The sad part is that a lot of re-enactors have been using this as a model from which to make their own harnesses because they trusted the MET to be a reliable source.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Jan, 2016 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Coat-armour is the padded garment of Black Prince's armour? |
At least that's the modern name we use to distinguish it (and other similar garments) from simple unpadded/non-quilted overgarments. I'm not sure what it was called back then.
| Quote: | What is the difference between a surcoat and a cyclas? Cyclas would be something like this?
|
As far as I know, yes, it basically means a transitional form of the surcoat that was longer in the back than in front. Effigies and Brasses turns up several examples on a simple tag search -- probably much better references than that modern drawing:
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/search/?year=&a...&name=
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Jan, 2016 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | Also, about effigies. I noticed a kind of garment, worn especially in the late fourteenth century. But the difference is that it has a specific shape, like if it had an armor in on it.
This could be the so called Corazzina? I barely see them in representations (only a picture of an Osprey's English Knight. They were never popular? |
The overgarment in that effigy doesn't seem armoured to me -- instead, it might have had decorative metal elements attached to it, or the relief was an exaggeration or artistic convention that the sculptor had to resort to in order to represent a woven/dyed/painted pattern on the fabric on the stone or metal medium. The shape of the overgarment, however, probably means that a separate piece of armour (maybe a breastplate) was worn underneath.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Tue 01 Mar, 2016 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | The overgarment in that effigy doesn't seem armoured to me -- instead, it might have had decorative metal elements attached to it, or the relief was an exaggeration or artistic convention that the sculptor had to resort to in order to represent a woven/dyed/painted pattern on the fabric on the stone or metal medium. The shape of the overgarment, however, probably means that a separate piece of armour (maybe a breastplate) was worn underneath. |
My hypothesis was precisely that one: a cuirass/breastplate beneath the overgarment. I saw a representation of this in one of Graham Turner illustrations - which, at least for me, is an illustrator who does not commit anachronisms in the pictures:
The number 7 is the so-called "Churburg breastplate," which seems to have emerged in the decade of 1380, if I'm not mistaken (?). I just didn't know it actually came to become popular outside of the North of Italy and of the Holy Roman Empire.
But I see very little talk about this curious cuirass-brigandine (nº6), which seems to have been the very basis of the "white-plated cuirass". It also appeared in Italy? When it became popular and where? There is also a very similar variation, made perhaps in the same decade
By the way, this type of overgament came to be named by modern scholars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alex W.
Location: Canada, Alberta Joined: 16 Feb 2016
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sun 06 Mar, 2016 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The number 6 is a covered breast plate, simply a globose plate, much like the churburg breastplate from number 7, but covered by a textile front then riveted on. It is considered to be the evolution of a coat of plates into a full breast plate as the plates got larger and larger until the entire chest is one solid plate.
The link you provided is indeed similar and is a much better example of a corrazina than the met provides, and is very similar in construction and role to the covered breastplate. The fact that it is front opening indicates it would have belonged to a poorer/lower class soldier as they would have traded structural weakness(front opening) for the fact that they could put it on unassisted (not the case with back opening armour)
It is my best guess that the majority of the effigies from about 1340-1370 show covered breastplates or other globose chest armour under a surcoat, due to the shape and the way the garment is cut off around the arms to allow movement, not an issue with a purely textile cloth.
I recommend watching Ian La Spina's youtube videos as they give an excellent overview of armour in the 1300's. the link below is specifically about coats of plates and is excellently done and well researched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiIMLA0L4c
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Mon 28 Mar, 2016 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex W. wrote: | I recommend watching Ian La Spina's youtube videos as they give an excellent overview of armour in the 1300's. the link below is specifically about coats of plates and is excellently done and well researched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiIMLA0L4c |
Thanks a lot, Alex. You could tell me why all these archaeological and artistic evidence findings are always in the historical regions of Italy, Germany or Scandinavia? It's like most of the medieval western nations, such as France and England, had not known these armors until the last two decades of the fourteenth century or whether they only were slow to adopt them anyway.
In fact, even in these times, at least in England, most of these pieces often are shown worn by great nobles who had more contact with continent rather than lords who spent more time on their british's domains.
--------
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | At least that's the modern name we use to distinguish it (and other similar garments) from simple unpadded/non-quilted overgarments. I'm not sure what it was called back then. |
Is there a clear difference between the jupon and the coat-armor? I've been digging images on the internet and I ended up confusing myself. The coat-armor was actually the more padded version or this would be the coat-armor itself? I would like to discuss a few examples:
These two armours, alongside with this picture from Osprey's book about Hanseatic League, exhibit coat-armours, right? I would also like to know if it was common to wear any piece of arm or chest protection beneath this garment (besides the mail worn underneath all, of course). I mean, the only thing that is exposed there is the pair of gauntlets, which is out of the fabric for practical reasons. They used to wear some sort of protection for the arms under these coat-armours, such as vambraces or forearm protectors made of steel or boiled leather?
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Fri 01 Apr, 2016 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've searched some manuscripts on the Battle of Crécy and found this:
I did notice protections for arms in the English knight. Also, this type of dress doesn't seem to be padded, actually it seems to be what I found on the internet as "Jupon":
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Apr, 2016 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Is there a clear difference between the jupon and the coat-armor? I've been digging images on the internet and I ended up confusing myself. |
No. The distinction between the two is modern, and even then there's a huge gray are in the middle.
| Quote: | | I would also like to know if it was common to wear any piece of arm or chest protection beneath this garment (besides the mail worn underneath all, of course). I mean, the only thing that is exposed there is the pair of gauntlets, which is out of the fabric for practical reasons. They used to wear some sort of protection for the arms under these coat-armours, such as vambraces or forearm protectors made of steel or boiled leather? |
Given how loose some of these garments appeared to be, it's perfectly possible to wear a breastplate or cuirass and a full arm harness (minus the gauntlet) underneath. However, I suspect in many cases the wearer only had the breastplate or cuirass underneath since padded sleeves over mail would have already been enough to provide the arms with a great deal of protection.
Seems like in many cases you're asking questions and demanding clear-cut answers when in reality there are many things about transitional armour that remain unknown even the world's foremost experts since the information hasn't been uncovered yet (or simply isn't there). Same thing with the social and military status of knights -- the information we have is neither 100% complete nor 100% reliable. You might actually have to do a considerable amount of primary source or archaeological research yourself just to get some idea of what's going on with those things.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Is there a clear difference between the jupon and the coat-armor? I've been digging images on the internet and I ended up confusing myself. |
No. The distinction between the two is modern, and even then there's a huge gray are in the middle. |
I understand, but I had read on another myArmoury's topic where one of the users claimed that "coat-armor" was a term for any of these garments that showed coat-of-arms. Jupon, Cyclas etc would be classifications based on the type of military garments, although it is a precarious classification and that doesn't include variations and hybrids
| Quote: | | Seems like in many cases you're asking questions and demanding clear-cut answers when in reality there are many things about transitional armour that remain unknown even the world's foremost experts since the information hasn't been uncovered yet (or simply isn't there). Same thing with the social and military status of knights -- the information we have is neither 100% complete nor 100% reliable. You might actually have to do a considerable amount of primary source or archaeological research yourself just to get some idea of what's going on with those things. |
Seems reasonable. But, in the case of you knowing about: we have inventory records for the period between 1300-1420 that mentions "pair of plates" amoung the itens?
I almost forgot that:
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Quote: | | By the way, how they recruited sergeants at that time? They came from households o or were recruited by levies? |
That's another can of worms. I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but serjeants are a confusing bunch because medieval records rarely drew a clear distinction between "serjeant" as a legal-tenurial term and "serjeant" as a military term. Both usages of the term were fading by the 14th century, however. Tenurial serjeants increasingly became socage tenants on the lower end of the spectrum and were gradually absorbed into the knightly social class at the upper end. Military serjeants were being replaced by more specific role-based classifications |
I researched about it and found these extracts from Ian Heath's military book:
http://www.warfare.altervista.org/WRG/Feudal-17-19-Sergeants.htm
http://www.warfare.altervista.org/WRG/Feudal-...ms-13C.htm
From what I understood, the sergeant receives a land grant, but instead of paying part of the production / money to the owner of the land, he provided some kind of service to the tenant, like military or courtly service. This means that barons (and knights maybe?) hand out serjanties to stewards, judges and other officials of a court as their payment/reward?
It also means that barons and knights hand out serjanties to some of their serfs in manner that these sergeants perform military service with better equipment? Besides cavalrymen, they would grant these serjeanties to a veteran longbowmen, for example?
Apparently, medieval chroniclers called sergeants all kind of "professional" troops", such as mercenaries, which may have caused some confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are their horses armored?
Randall Storey, Technology and Military Policy in Medieval England, c.1250-1350
http://virtuabis.free.fr/Technology%20and%20M...ngland.pdf
| Quote: | Mail barding, usually recorded as 'coopteri feri' or 'trappes', which had
become much more common in Europe during the late twelfth century, was now required for all knights
and men-at-arms' horses, becoming the primary distinction for pay: knights with at least two covered
mounts earned 2s per day, men-at-arms serving with one covered mount received 1s per day, and the
serjeants and hobelars serving with an uncovered mount received 6-8d per day. Archers and crossbowmen
typically received 2-3d or 4-6d per day on uncovered mounts. |
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | Are their horses armored?
Randall Storey, Technology and Military Policy in Medieval England, c.1250-1350
http://virtuabis.free.fr/Technology%20and%20M...ngland.pdf
| Quote: | Mail barding, usually recorded as 'coopteri feri' or 'trappes', which had
become much more common in Europe during the late twelfth century, was now required for all knights
and men-at-arms' horses, becoming the primary distinction for pay: knights with at least two covered
mounts earned 2s per day, men-at-arms serving with one covered mount received 1s per day, and the
serjeants and hobelars serving with an uncovered mount received 6-8d per day. Archers and crossbowmen
typically received 2-3d or 4-6d per day on uncovered mounts. |
|
Pretty interesting information. I don't know if it was intentional, but the text gave the impression that men-at-arms were poorer (and perhaps from status lower military status) than the knights. At that time the Kingdom of England imported its own hobelars from the conquered parts of Ireland and Wales? I know that "s" in this case refers to shillings, but and "d"? The archers and crossbowmen's horses that the text refers are transport horses, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Librae, solidi, and denarii, in Latin.
Livre, sous (or sols), and denier in French.
Pounds (£), shillings, and pence in English.
Since the scribes are writing in Latin, they use Latin abbreviations, and the English still use the stylized L for pounds.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Seems reasonable. But, in the case of you knowing about: we have inventory records for the period between 1300-1420 that mentions "pair of plates" amoung the itens? |
Ian LaSpina mentions several in his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiIMLA0L4c
| Quote: | | Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Quote: | | By the way, how they recruited sergeants at that time? They came from households o or were recruited by levies? |
That's another can of worms. I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but serjeants are a confusing bunch because medieval records rarely drew a clear distinction between "serjeant" as a legal-tenurial term and "serjeant" as a military term. Both usages of the term were fading by the 14th century, however. Tenurial serjeants increasingly became socage tenants on the lower end of the spectrum and were gradually absorbed into the knightly social class at the upper end. Military serjeants were being replaced by more specific role-based classifications |
I researched about it and found these extracts from Ian Heath's military book:
http://www.warfare.altervista.org/WRG/Feudal-17-19-Sergeants.htm
http://www.warfare.altervista.org/WRG/Feudal-...ms-13C.htm
From what I understood, the sergeant receives a land grant, but instead of paying part of the production / money to the owner of the land, he provided some kind of service to the tenant, like military or courtly service. This means that barons (and knights maybe?) hand out serjanties to stewards, judges and other officials of a court as their payment/reward? |
You're talking about the tenurial meaning of serjeanties here. Serjeants didn't always receive land grants -- sometimes they were given monetary stipends/salaries instead. And they didn't only exist in the households of local lords. The royal household had some too; these "grand serjeanties" were highly prestigious offices and pretty much the only sort of serjeanties that survived into the modern age.
| Quote: | | It also means that barons and knights hand out serjanties to some of their serfs in manner that these sergeants perform military service with better equipment? |
No, no, serjeants weren't serfs. Serjeanty was a whole different category of tenure from villeinage. Serjeanty was a free tenure -- even if the holder was tehcnically somebody else's "servant," he was personally free and the terms for entering or leaving service were more similar to other free tenures like socage or knight service.
| Quote: | | Besides cavalrymen, they would grant these serjeanties to a veteran longbowmen, for example? |
By the time longbowmen became a truly important component in English armies, the serjeanty was already becoming an irrelevant institution and most tenurial serjeants were having their tenures converted upwards into knight service or downwards into socage.
The longbowmen's contracts were of a wholly different sort, based on money payments and fixed terms of service (rather than lifetime association) like modern professional soldiers. These were literally business contracts as we understand them today rather than feudal tenurial bonds.
| Quote: | | Apparently, medieval chroniclers called sergeants all kind of "professional" troops", such as mercenaries, which may have caused some confusion. |
There's this whole other military meaning of "serjeant," which had barely any connection whatsoever to the serjeanty tenure. It was generally used for relatively well-equipped and well-paid troops who nevertheless didn't have the social status (and thus couldn't claim as much pay) as knights and squires. A small number of them were tenurial serjeants too, and owed their lords a certain amount of service through tenurial bonds -- although for the most part they only owed unpaid service for a small number of days per year and could expect to be paid for most of the duration of their actual wartime service. But the majority of people who fell under the military category of "serjeants" were probably not tenurial serjeants -- they were just professional paid troops who weren't of knightly status, and probably had no tenurial obligations of military service (although the commanders with whom they volunteered to serve for pay were often their feudal superiors in peacetime).
Most of the time, when chroniclers speak of "serjeants" in the context of a battle or a military campaign, it was this military sense of "sergeants" that they used, not the tenurial meaning. So you can safely ignore the tenurial serjeanties in discussions about military history since in the larger scheme of things they weren't really that significant.
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't give the Met too hard a time. They would have taken the Dean suit off the floor thirty years ago (along with some other dodgy items), but the public just wouldn't have it. Damn thing nearly has its own fan club. If you read the lengthy museum tag that accompanies it, it explains the whole thing (except we still can't figure out what the shoulders were made out of!).
jamesarlen.com
|
|
 |
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Quote: | | Besides cavalrymen, they would grant these serjeanties to a veteran longbowmen, for example? |
By the time longbowmen became a truly important component in English armies, the serjeanty was already becoming an irrelevant institution and most tenurial serjeants were having their tenures converted upwards into knight service or downwards into socage. |
From about that time the medieval armies no longer have this primary basis of 40 days feudal service to military sistems based on cash payment? Did this cash system could have been the cause behind the suplantation of earlier sergeants and knightly armies to more generic men-at-arms based core?
| Quote: | There's this whole other military meaning of "serjeant," which had barely any connection whatsoever to the serjeanty tenure. It was generally used for relatively well-equipped and well-paid troops who nevertheless didn't have the social status (and thus couldn't claim as much pay) as knights and squires. A small number of them were tenurial serjeants too, and owed their lords a certain amount of service through tenurial bonds -- although for the most part they only owed unpaid service for a small number of days per year and could expect to be paid for most of the duration of their actual wartime service. But the majority of people who fell under the military category of "serjeants" were probably not tenurial serjeants -- they were just professional paid troops who weren't of knightly status, and probably had no tenurial obligations of military service (although the commanders with whom they volunteered to serve for pay were often their feudal superiors in peacetime).
Most of the time, when chroniclers speak of "serjeants" in the context of a battle or a military campaign, it was this military sense of "sergeants" that they used, not the tenurial meaning. So you can safely ignore the tenurial serjeanties in discussions about military history since in the larger scheme of things they weren't really that significant. |
Got it. By the way, I had read in a historical fiction book (War of Roses by Conn Igulden) where it mentions that the sergeants (in this case probably as a military rank, like Landsknechts sergeants) participating in the training of new troops, including of the longbowmen. They teach them how to march in squad, how to work in military tatics and eventually lead them into running exercises to increase soldiery's stamina. Has this a single drop of historical basis or is pure product of the author of the head?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 31 May, 2016 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Quote: | | Besides cavalrymen, they would grant these serjeanties to a veteran longbowmen, for example? |
By the time longbowmen became a truly important component in English armies, the serjeanty was already becoming an irrelevant institution and most tenurial serjeants were having their tenures converted upwards into knight service or downwards into socage. |
From about that time the medieval armies no longer have this primary basis of 40 days feudal service to military sistems based on cash payment? Did this cash system could have been the cause behind the suplantation of earlier sergeants and knightly armies to more generic men-at-arms based core? |
Not really. See, the importance of the 40-day feudal service has been greatly exaggerated and overemphasised in modern literature. Paid soldiers had been there all along. A large proportion (perhaps the majority!) of William's army at Hastings was made up of paid soldiers with little or no feudal relationship with William. There's also evidence that the English force opposing them were paid, either for wartime militia service or full-time service as guards or housecarles for the King and important nobles. Even Crusading forces weren't entirely made up of unpaid volunteers -- especially in the Second and later Crusades, one of the reasons Crusading was so expensive was because the leaders had to raise money for the regular pay of their soldiers. The Baronial party's attempt to kick Mercadier and his continental mercenaries out during the civil war against King John was arguably more of a futile attempt to stave off changes that were already well underway rather than a revolutionary assertion of the English nobility's privileges against royal fiat and so on and so on.
Short answer: no. Even during the earlier "knights and serjeants" era (just using your terminology -- I have no idea how you define it), paid military service was already quite common.
| Quote: | | By the way, I had read in a historical fiction book (War of Roses by Conn Igulden) where it mentions that the sergeants (in this case probably as a military rank, like Landsknechts sergeants) participating in the training of new troops, including of the longbowmen. They teach them how to march in squad, how to work in military tatics and eventually lead them into running exercises to increase soldiery's stamina. Has this a single drop of historical basis or is pure product of the author of the head? |
We don't know. There's very little information about how troops were trained after they joined the company/army/whatever in this era. Burgundian Ordonnances stated that troops had to know how to march and how to fight in certain formations but didn't give us nuts-and-bolts of how they really did that, much less about how they were trained to do so.
One very important thing to note is that the troops in this era were already partly (or mostly) trained through their civilian experiences before they even joined a military force. Just to take the longbowmen as an example, they were recruited from among the best, strongest, and most skillful archers in rural militias. Some of them would have had experience coordinating with each other during expeditions organised by local law enforcement officials to clear the roads of banditry. Some might have been bandits and horse-thieves themselves. Some others might have been recruited as hunters by local nobles, thus giving them the chance to undertake coordination exercises with those noble patrons and their retinues of men-at-arms.
Of course, that doesn't mean they never received any further training after they joined an expeditionary company going to France. They could have, especially when it comes to manoeuvring and fighting in large formations. But they wouldn't have had to start all the way from zero like in modern military basic training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic