[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Henry Barrett wanted archers to have "a maule of leade with a pyke of five inches longe, well stieled, sett in a staff of fyve foote of lengthe with a hooke at his gyrdell to take of and mayntayne the fighte as oure elders have donn, with handye stroaks."

He was a Tudor captain who wrote a handbook in 1562.

Also, Religiuex wrote of Agincourt, "In addition, many of them had adopted a type of weapon until then unknown - great lead-covered mallets from which one single blow on the head could kill a man or knock him senseless to the ground."

[Rod Parsons]

So they were in fact improvising...
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

At Agincourt? Perhaps. If so, it turned out to be quite effective, as archers still used lead mauls nearly a hundred and fifty years later.

[Josh Brown]

[Rod Parsons]

IMO the role of the mallet or maul as a standard weapon of the archer is over rated. At Agincourt the French were at first reluctant to make an advance, so the English advanced and the archers planted their stakes in the ground, which would account for their having mallets to hand.

In the final stages of the fight the French were in some disarray and when the general attack came from the English, the archers, numerically predominant in the English force would have been far more mobile than men at arms on the mired ground where so many French had been pressed down by their own weight of numbers.

Waurin noted that the archers used "swords, hatchets, mallets, axes, falcon beaks,and other weapons to good effect".
The fact that Religieux notes that many of them used great lead covered mallets to good effect does not, I believe, support the presumption that it was the archer's weapon of choice.

Indeed a case can be made that the Tudors were as attached as some of the later writers to the notion of the stout English yeoman who could crush the flower of French chivalry with no more than a common mallet, leading to the elaboration of the tool in Barrett's later proposal.

The English archer was in the Hundred Years War and later in the Wars of the Roses not so poorly equipped, but given the circumstances, was sufficiently aggressive to make good use of whatever was to hand.

As often the archers relied upon the steadfastness of the men at arms to provide their support and did not always plant stakes and where stakes were not employed in defense of an improvised line there would be less likelihood of the extensive use of mallets, especially where the enemy was not in disarray.

That the English archer characteristically fought with a mallet or maul is I believe a myth based upon the improvised use of these tools at Agincourt. When we look at contemporary illustration of archers in battle you will see swords, hangers, falchions and knives, but nary a maul or mallet.
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Marcos Cantu]

Maybe by mallet they mean something like this...





MRL calls it the "Foot Soldier's War Hammer." It's a little under 3 feet long, weighs 3 lbs and the back spike is around 4"

[Elling Polden]

Now, it's supposed to be made out of lead, wich is quite soft, and does not lend itself that well to a hammer. I'm pondering if they could means something like this, without the spikes. Basically a lead weighted Gotentag.
Posibly with a hook, mentioned in the manual? (Not native english speaker, not quite sure of the context of the hook reference.)
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/displayimage....amp;pos=31

In any case, a lead head would not need to very big to give a propper striking weight. Of course, it could have a wooden head with lead weights.

Looked in the dictionary, wich says

mal·let P Pronunciation Key (mlt)
n.
A short-handled hammer, usually with a cylindrical head of wood, used chiefly to drive a chisel or wedge.
A tool with a large head, used to strike a surface without damaging it.
Sports. A long-handled implement used to strike a ball, as in croquet and polo.
Music. A light hammer with a rounded head for striking a percussion instrument.

[Middle English, from Old French maillet, diminutive of mail, maul. See maul.]

maul P Pronunciation Key (môl)
n.
also mall (môl)
A heavy, long-handled hammer used especially to drive stakes, piles, or wedges.
A heavy hammer having a wedge-shaped head and used for splitting logs.

[Middle English malle, from Old French mail, from Latin malleus. See mel- in Indo-European Roots.]

These are the modern definitions, and could be different from the ones used back then. Worthy of note, however, is that mallet is a diminutive form.

[Rod Parsons]

The writing of 1562 by Henry Barrett, when archery had already declined from it's former power, proposes a hypothetical equipment anticipating the later proposal for "double armed man", which suggests combining the function of archer and billman or halberdier.
It does not represent usual practice of the 15thC.
Further, my previous comment about the later Tudor attachment to the patriotic view of the stout yeoman still stands.
That a quantity of leaden mallets might be stored in Calais is no surprise, nor is it particularly relevant since all manner of tools and equipment were kept in store. Mallets are first and foremost a tool for driving in a stake etc.
That some use of the mallet was made to good effect at Agincourt is not in itself evidence of the mallet being other than a tool which could be used as a weapon.
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Rod Parsons]

I would suggest that the document by Barrett was a proposal for a possible means of future employment of these arms, not a description of actual and historical practice.
As for the Strickland comment, that it cites "since Agincourt" as the exemplar speaks for itself. And on this topic he is probably a tertiary source at best.
I believe that this canard about the archer's weaponry grew out of the improvised use of such tools at Agincourt where the line had advanced to provoke a French advance, taking with it stakes and the means to drive them in.
It has been continued and elaborated upon since as a model for the perceived superiority of the stout yeoman who could take on and vanquish the fully armed foreigner with only a humble tool.
I do not reject the notion that someone might have a preference for a maul on the battlefield, but if it were the general weapon you might have us suppose, why are archers invariably shown equipped with sword or falchion and knife in contemporary illustration? I would suggest that this is so because that was their standard equipment.
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Rod Parsons]

You might just as well claim that Frenchmen were clubbed to death with holy water sprinklers if it is significant that the mallets were, like the sprinklers, in the same room as other weapons.
And outside of a couple of battles where bows were used and mallets were apparently not, apart from the Mary Rose artefacts, I have little interest in the 16thC.
When I speak of contemporary illustrations showing archers, I am refering to the heyday of the longbow, pre 16thC.
Roughly speaking the campaigns of Longshanks to the Wars of the Roses.
All this talk about mallets has it's source in the improvised use at Agincourt and the myth of the mallet or maul as a standard archer's side arm has grown from there.
Archers with no other weapons? Not too likely in a battle scenario.
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Rod Parsons]

It was a proposal for an early style of "double armed man" not a mandate.
Other than that you have a bunch of tools in the same room as some weapons and some water sprinklers and the well known precedent of improvised use at Agincourt.
That they were intended for use there is no doubt, most likely for driving in stakes. Other use optional...
And not a single ilustration of an archer armed with a maul or mallet from contemporary illustration pre 16thC.
Is that all?
Not saying they couldn't be used, just that they were not the standard sidearm, THAT is a myth.
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Dan Howard]

The Barrett text indicates that archers were to be equipped with mallets but it doesn't specifically say that their primary purpose was for combat. I am thinking that their primary purpose was to drive in wooden stakes (an integral part of English longbow tactics). If these tools could be adopted for combat afterwards then it means that the archers don't have to carry an additional weapon. The spike may have been added to increase its usefulness in combat but IMO its principal purpose was for driving in stakes.

Don't get into the trap of thinking that mallets and mauls are different things. "Mallet" means "small maul" and both words were used to describe basically the same tool.

[Rod Parsons]

It matters not how many Frenchmen mentioned mallets at Agincourt except perhaps to underline that they found it unusual. But use of them at Agincourt is not in question. However you are very selective in what you choose to acknowledge from the commentators and seem to be oblivious to context.
Note that another commentator who mention mallets does not single them out in the same way, finding it unremarkable but naming the usual side arms first.
Enough of Barrett and his proposal in the declining years of the longbow.
Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Dan Howard]