Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: H.M.Stanley on October 11, 2013, 09:08:37 AM

Title: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 11, 2013, 09:08:37 AM
Hi. Does anyone know what the likely ratio of Archers was to Billmen  (and Others) in the WotR?

I'm loosely theming mine on Lord Percy's Retinue but think i may have over-invested in bowmen. I currently have three units of Billmen (plus a couple of units of Scottish Mercenary Spearmen and a unit each of mounted/dismounted MAA)

Cheers,

James

Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 11, 2013, 10:13:29 AM
This is a tricky one. I seem to remember it was about three to one as archers were still an essential part of an army (not to mention a cheap one compared to a fully armoured man at arms).

Now, lots of people have said the longbow was past its best by the WotR and its effects were nothing like as dramatic as in the Hundred Years War. I would cautiously agree, but for important reasons.

1) Both sides had lots of longbows, so the battles tended to start with a long-range duel between archers until they ran out of arrows, where both sides often cancelled each other out (although there were some important exceptions). If one side had a lot more archers, or a lot more arrows to lob, they had a decided advantage.

2) There were less mounted troops and armour had advanced to the point where the arrows were less likely to cause casualties among men at arms - although they had abandoned the shield so perhaps there was a little vulnerability there.

This means that for a wargame, some people prefer not to field as many archers because it's not much fun to spend the first three turns just lobbing arrows about at extreme range. Of course, if your opponent hasn't taken many archers, you could have a distinct advantage, softening up their billmen before contact.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 11, 2013, 10:47:53 AM
Thanks Cubs. A clubmate is trying to convince me that the longbow was on the wane after 100YW, in terms of numbers that is.

Cheers, J
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 11, 2013, 11:17:32 AM
Thanks Cubs. A clubmate is trying to convince me that the longbow was on the wane after 100YW, in terms of numbers that is.

Cheers, J

I think it was, but the drop was not rapid, rather it gently faded and the Hundred Years War continued up to the 1450's, which is when the WoTR started. In the campaigns in France following Agincourt, only a few decades before the WotR began, a 4 to 1 ratio was still the norm.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 11, 2013, 12:06:51 PM
I was thinking about 7:4:1 in terms of archers, billmen, MAA & my friend was trying to suggest that it should be much less and possibly 4:4:1

I don't think mine is that far out from what you've said.

Thanks again
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 11, 2013, 03:19:54 PM
I can't give anything concrete and the ratio would depend on what type of unit we're talking. Potentially overall, there were possibly ten (or more) times the number of 'Billmen' (or spearmen, or stavemen, or I don't know what men) to archers, but these were the poorest (income was <£2 p.a.), least martial and ill-equipped members of society (the lowest income groups weren't even to have to have armour), and other than brief local summonses, hadn't been called up since 1403.

Such was the decline in calling the 'masses' that many did not even keep up the legally stipulated levels of equipment (likewise the case with a fair few archers too). Archers were what was wanted for service in France, everybody else and those 'archers' not prepared to serve abroad, slacked off somewhat, judging by the laws passed against 'games' being played on Sundays, instead of weapons practice.

There 'may' have been a decline in the overall numbers of archers, it's hard to tell, but royal commissioners claimed they couldn't raise enough archers to fill a commission of array in 1457. The reason given was that so many had signed up with the nobles' retinues. Despite the somewhat reasonable levy of the commission (iirc it was for 28,000 archers over all England, barring the Northern Marches), only something like 75% of the numbers could have been raised. At that point, presuming they needed quantity, not quality, that would be when they started calling up the 'billmen' to make good the numbers. 

Within the 'professionals' of the retinues, the commonly mentioned ratio was 2-3 archers per 'man at arms' (which would include 'Knights', gentry and what we have come to call 'Retinue Billmen' - a term not used at the time). Archers came from what we might describe today as the upper-working and lower-middle classes and were hardly the peasants people see them as. Men at Arms were the middle class and upwards, with a few from the 'archer' classes, who had for whatever reason, not become archers. 

The bill to bow ratio gets argued all over the place, as if it was an absolute concrete value. In reality the numbers would vary from village to village, region to region, or from retinue to retinue. The North was 'poor' in relation to the South, so more bill/spears were the norm across a typical cross-section of people, the Midlands were perhaps the average and the South East of course, somewhat wealthier than the average. The numbers of archers to others available overall would shift accordingly. Raise 100 men from a village in the North and you 'might' get 75% spears/bills, 50/50 in the Midlands and perhaps 75% archers in the South East (these are illustrations for example btw, not actual numbers... I couldn't begin to guess what they might be in reality).   

Your Medieval commander raising a body of men to supplement his retinue, had the choice to go for numbers or he could be selective and dismiss any 'empty mouths', or 'naked men' to suit his needs at the time. The bigger the force raised from within an area though, the higher the proportion of bills to bows.

Those are my thoughts anyway... I doubt I've helped though.  ;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Elk101 on October 11, 2013, 03:44:16 PM
The man himself has modestly not referenced it, but I'd strongly recommend you read Arlequin's blog (link at the bottom of his post) which has some great stuff on the period.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 11, 2013, 04:16:03 PM
Thank you gentlemen and i'll certainly have a look at your blog Arlequin

I had a feeling that there should be more "Northern spearmen" in my Percy list [sigh]

Cheers
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 11, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
The man himself has modestly not referenced it, but I'd strongly recommend you read Arlequin's blog (link at the bottom of his post) which has some great stuff on the period.

This.
The man's a walking encyclopaedia on this stuff  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 11, 2013, 08:36:43 PM
As always, there is no clear answer. Traditional rule sets favour the ration between archers, billmen and MAA of 5:4:1, and this was said to be supported by primary sources, such as the Bridport Muster Roll. This contains 201 individuals of whom 114 had longbows.

However, if you dig deeper you find that of the of 39 polearms listed in this rare muster document (of which only 3 were bills!), over a third are actually owned by men who also had a bow. Which leaves only 12 men with polearms as their primary weapon. The seemingly 'unarmed' ones left over are because I've excluded sidearms.

Further, based on the 1475 indentures for the expedition to France, Ian Heath's in 'Armies of The Middle Ages' Vol. 1, p. 14, wrote,

'The availability of the militia on such a grand scale meant the ratio of archers to men-at-arms was considerably higher than in the Hundred Years' War era, being as high as 8:1 on occasion. Edward IV's 1475 expedition to France, for instance, though an indentured army, comprised 10,173 archers to 1,278 men-at-arms'

My opinion is 4 archers to 1 chap with a polearm is as good a ratio as any  :D
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 12, 2013, 09:16:05 AM
Thanks for the blog plugs guys, I'm flattered. I tend not to mention it as I'm a believer in using the forum as a place for discussion, rather than a place to re-direct people some place else. Can't say I mind the traffic though.

;)

Janner is right, there is no clear answer.

In the Hundred Years War and the 1475 Adventure, the forces raised were 'picked' (often over months) and men were even required to display their skill at arms before being signed up. If their bow wasn't up to standard, they were 'sold' a new one out of the stock produced for the campaign (how this was done I'm not sure, probably through deductions).

In both cases archers were preferred over anyone else. They were cheap, you could get a mounted archer and a foot archer for what it cost to employ a man at arms. The 1:8 ratio wasn't actually that odd in 1475 either, the French, for all their numbers of men at arms, were using a similar ratio, as of course were the Burgundians.

The closest 'domestic' equivalent to these were the retinues of the nobles and gentry, which were semi-permanent entities, built round a smaller permanent core. So while the permanent household might be 1:3 men at arms to archers , the part-time members might bump it up to 1:8. Add in all the tenants, cottars and anyone not actually 'unfree' (there were still a lot of 'serfs' around in the 15th Century, although in rapidly declining numbers), then the ratio of archers would drop, there being only a finite number of low to middle income people in any given community.

There were indeed a number of archers who also had access to bills. Calais bought something like 1,000 bows and 100 bills for its garrison, but you will find no billmen listed in the payroll. Make of that what you will, but I'm tempted to think that the bills were to equip those placed on guard duty and city 'security' -'Watch and Ward'.

The Bridport 'Muster Roll' wasn't actually a muster roll, it was an assessment (obviously based on what was known, rather than a guess). There were a lot of names with no equipment listed too. Either these people weren't assessed (for whatever reason), or they had no equipment... we don't actually know which. Janner is right that quite a few of those for whom equipment is listed, were armed to the teeth. Bridport is on the same coast that was menaced by the very French pirates who caused the assessment to be made, so they were in the front line. The assessment for the half-hundred of Ewelme, in the Chilterns, gives a somewhat different picture. Out of 17 villages, 85 people were eligible for service, of which only 17 were archers (6 of those were from Ewelme itself, so it wasn't exactly an even spread). 

The only other major source we have, is the often quoted 'Strickland Indenture' (i.e. it was a retinue - not a levy) which gives approximately a 50/50 split between bows and bills, whether on foot or mounted. Current contention is that this document is actually 16th Century document which relates to an account of a 15th Century retinue (or is a copy), so can't be relied upon. Certainly the language used is not 15th Century, particularly as it lists 'bows' and 'bylls', two words you will never find in any other '15th Century' document and there is no mention of men at arms either.

All of that aside, I have always said that people really should just please themselves as far as the proportions go. Yes, maybe there was something like a 1:8:40 split between men at arms, archers and the rest, across the overall population, but the point is that as a 'commander' you have a degree of control over who you accept/raise for service and who you don't. You would be on a budget too and unless you can raise your army, find your enemy and bring them into battle within 40 days, you're going to have to find the money to pay your men, or they will walk.

There's also the value of the men. Most of them would simply be useless, no armour and nothing much better than a pointy stick. They really don't want to be there and when they decide to run during the battle, they will take everyone else with them. If you need numbers then you might have too be less choosy, but some will really be a liability. Maybe that brings things down to 1:8:8, 1:8:4 or whatever, nobody really knows.

If it was me, I would have 1 Man at arms to 3 mounted archers (maybe swapping out the occasional archer for a 'currour' or whatever) in the retinue. For each of these groups I had, I would also add 5 archers on foot as the semi-permanent retinue members. For local levies/tenants and the like I would go for a 50/50 split between archers and bills, with the bills as the inferior troop type. If you want a less selective force, increase the numbers of bills.

If you are buying Perry Plastics, you can make it even simpler... one box of the forthcoming 'Men at Arms on Foot' to four boxes of their Bills & Bows, wouldn't be too unrepresentative I think.

:)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 12, 2013, 09:34:54 AM
All of which brilliant erudition and insight (which I absolutely love, by the way), does not alter the fact, that a WOTR-era wargame with eight longbowmen to every one melee-weapon-armed figure, would make for a very boring wargame indeed ;)

The other thing which I can never quite reconcile, is that we know that battles in the WOTR were not usually won by longbowmen. They were won by the nobs in their suits of armour, getting into hand-to-hand combat and bashing each other to pieces. The longbow duel was seen as a prelude to the real business of the day.

If you played a wargame with 80 archers and 10 men-at-arms/billmen on each side, it would simply be an extended missile duel - until one or other side broke from a morale failure. The melee would be incidental - if it ever happened at all.

So it would be an unhistorical outcome, despite the supposedly historical preponderance of an overwhelming ratio of longbows...

All of which tells me
a/ There must have been a much more balanced mix of troop types than the scant historical records appear to show. Or...
b/ We don't understand what happened on the battlefield back then. Perhaps all the bowmen simply joined in the hand to hand with gusto. Or...
c/ Longbows were very much less effective than we've all been led to think they were (and wargames rules tend to show them as...)

Or was it simply the case that the cultural and social mores of the day, meant that the nobility couldn't possibly allow thier destinies to be decided by the overwhelming firepower of the hoi-polloi. So they didn't try to make the longbow decisive on the battlefield, or use it to its full potential, because in their world, the only way to fight 'properly' was face to face with your foe, wielding a poleaxe? (Seems unlikely, but you never know... )

It remains, a bit of a mystery  ::)  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 12, 2013, 10:58:21 AM
Can I just say how nice it is to find a discussion where no-one says, "You're wrong, I'm right."

I can't find anything to disagree with in any of the posts (in fact, I'm kind of intimidated by the obviously superior knowledge to mine).

As to the Skipper's point, my own personal take on it is as stated in my first post. I think the longbow (or great bow, or war bow, or just .. bow .. whatever) was still extremely effective at the time of the WotR if used in the right way. But, since both sides fielded them in roughly equal numbers, there was no overwhelming advantage to be gained.

They often duelled at the limit of their effective range because ... well, what eejit would order his archers to march closer to the other side's archers, taking casualties all the way, just to gain a range advantage that the other side would gain too! Then, when the arrows ran out, as postulated, they probably hefted their bills and axes and swelled the numbers of lightly armoured men lurking on the fringes.

The Battle of Towton dramatically illustrates how effective they could still be when the elements effectively negated the other side's archers.

But yes, it would make for a very boring game if we always followed history to the letter. Imagine the fun of more modern wargames if we just went to ground each time we got in range and called in an artillery strike for the next couple of hours.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 12, 2013, 11:17:01 AM
Thanks all.  :)

Fair points and indeed we don't have any eye-witness battlefield accounts to go by. Where significant events are mentioned though, there are some clues. Take Towton for example: A (presumably) larger Lancastrian army abandons a ridge to attack. Why? Presumably the weather rendered their archery ineffective (i.e. they were losing the archery duel), or they had less archers overall than the Yorkists and couldn't afford to trade volleys, or they thought one charge would do the trick... add in your own scenario, whatever.

How effective exactly was the Longbow? Modern tests, using modern steel heads, against 'equivalent medieval armour plate' are a bit skewed. Most arrow heads were cheap mass produced iron (the paperwork for them tell us this) and quite a few have been recovered with their points 'curled' where they've bent after hitting something solid. Certainly they caused some horrific wounds (depending on the head) amongst the unarmoured, but the typical soldier wore a jack or brigandine and a helmet of some form, fairly arrow proof stuff at a distance. Just like a bow, they were required by law amongst the bulk of men usually selected for service.

How many arrows were available? They supposedly carried 24 on them, are believed to have taken another 24 into the field and there were wagons of them ready to be brought forward. Modern archers can rapid-fire 10 or so in minute, but nobody ever asks them to shoot for longer. How long could they keep that up? We might say that a more sedate 6 a minute might be more sustainable, but at best 8 minutes on, their on-hand stock has gone. Could enough be repeatedly brought forward to keep them supplied for an extended period? Probably not.

Longbowmen as 'archers' never won a battle, or never stopped the French from making contact with the English 'line' - bearing in mind that the French initially didn't deploy their own missile troops, it should have been a turkey-shoot in most engagements, if the longbow was all it was cracked up to be. In the rain or high winds, the weapon was far less effective too (not that these are factors in England lol). It harassed, caused confusion and disorder and occasionally seriously wounded or killed someone of note (unusually enough to get a mention, e.g. Lord Clifford), but as Richard says, it didn't win battles.

Archers weren't the puny wretches of ancient armies... they were hard men from hard backgrounds. If they could pull 100 lbs of bow string, repeatedly for an extended period, how strong where these guys in our terms? They were prepared to fight hand to hand and in an age where copping some befuddled noble meant happy days when they got their share of the ransom (the way to make war pay), quite keen to mix it up. We tend to think of them as archers, when perhaps we should think of them as close-combat infantry who also had a bow.

Many men at arms in the 15th Century (especially in the WotR, as opposed to the guys who made it a career in France) weren't the 'trained from birth' types, many of them were merchants, lawyers and relatively rich farmers; the 'gentry' (all fur coat and no knickers, as we might say). Some would be exactly what we imagine them to be, many not so much.    

Down the scale we have the billmen/spearmen/stavemen. The poorest of the lot. Not required to provide much in the way of armour (but if they had it, they'd wear it) and don't earn enough to have to own, or practice, with a bow. Nevertheless they were the unskilled workforce, so probably fairly handy in a fight, if a little un-practiced with their weapon and vulnerable due to a lack of armour on average.

Taking this as a whole and averaging things out, the actual fighting qualities across the types might not be as varied or wide as you might imagine. Men at Arms have somewhat better protection, although not necessarily be actually more skilled at fighting. The Archers are the mid-range, with some as experienced as the more 'professional' of the men at arms. They can fight and shoot, so on the whole give more 'bang for your buck'. Billmen are somewhat less protected in the main than the archers, somewhat less skilled in terms of fighting with an unfamiliar weapon and not typically expected to become soldiers in recent times.

Whatever ratio of one troop type to another you believe these armies had, the fact remains that their main strength is in hand to hand combat overall (everyone in the army could trade blows, but not everyone can shoot). The ratio of archers you believe was right will not change that. Given that most armies would probably have had even-ish numbers of bows, however effective they actually were would be cancelled out.

Where the bow was of real use, was when there was an advantage to one side; Towton and its blizzard, the tradition that one side had a lack of archers at Edgecote, or consisted of large numbers of poorly protected troops, like at Stoke Field, stuff like that. Obviously the side with an advantage would then want to use it for as long as it could, while the other would want to close as quick as possible. Either way, equal numbers of bows or not, it came down to hand to hand combat to decide things.  

Or was it simply the case that the cultural and social mores of the day, meant that the nobility couldn't possibly allow thier destinies to be decided by the overwhelming firepower of the hoi-polloi. So they didn't try to make the longbow decisive on the battlefield, or use it to its full potential, because in their world, the only way to fight 'properly' was face to face with your foe, wielding a poleaxe? (Seems unlikely, but you never know... )

The nobles were simply more committed than their men, earnestly more so once they started lopping off heads after battles (quite a new idea for the time). To keep your men onside (other than rewards, or the promise of them), being in the front rank and sharing the risk was all part and parcel of leading and ensuring your neck wasn't on the block in the AM. Depending on your military skills, it makes sense to use every advantage and weapon you have to its fullest, but inevitably you are there at the front hacking your enemy down and hoping your men are still behind you doing the same.

The nobility had to lead from the front and to appear committed to 'the cause'. While Mr Average was not so blindly obedient, or beholden to do what he was told by his betters, by the 15th Century, there was still a degree of deference. If your 'Lord' (or 'employer' in real terms by this time) said it was a good idea, it probably was, but he had to match his words with deeds.

There was a natural reluctance to be stuck on the losing side on a field, knowing that your boss could mount up and make a break for it, while you had to take your chances on foot with everyone else. The dismounting and sending of horses to the rear and indeed Warwick's "I'm with you men!" speech and his lopping off of his mount's head as a show of solidarity (probably didn't really happen though, Warwick had a spin doctor), became common and expected.  

Can I just say how nice it is to find a discussion where no-one says, "You're wrong, I'm right."

That's how we like to roll here.  :D

To be honest, it's a situation where nobody knows the right answer, but everyone pretty much knows that anyone saying that they do, is wrong.

;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 12, 2013, 11:21:39 AM
It's generally different here than on some other forums. Occasionally new members bring some bad habits with them, but they generally either chill out or move on  lol

Just to throw into the mix, and apologies as I know I have raised this before, but I am inclined to think that job titles like men-at-arms, mounted archer and archer were more to do with equipment and rates of pay then strict function.

Much like many other eras, carrying a particular label doesn't stop a professional soldier from carrying out a variety of tasks, i.e. one man's mounted archer is another man's light horseman. So a professional foot archer was essentially medium infantry with a warbow, sidearm and, often, a pole arm.

With the Array, it would have been somewhat different - as Arlequin elegantly argues.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 12, 2013, 12:03:07 PM
as Arlequin elegantly, if somewhat really at length, argues.

Fixed that for you.  ;)

Just to throw into the mix, and apologies as I know I have raised this before, but I am inclined to think that job titles like men-at-arms, mounted archer and archer were more to do with equipment and rates of pay then strict function.

Much like many other eras, carrying a particular label doesn't stop a professional soldier from carrying out a variety of tasks, i.e. one man's mounted archer is another man's light horseman. So a professional foot archer was essentially medium infantry with a warbow, sidearm and, often, a pole arm.

With the Array, it would have been somewhat different...

Absolutely. I think we constrain these guys with labels far more than they would have themselves. There were some specialised troops, 'scouts' for example, were employed in very small numbers in Calais (and on enhanced pay), but you'd imagine they would be leading, or within, a larger group of 'other' mounted men carrying out routine patrols. The rest were paid typical rates, but were either expected, or able, to perform a variety of roles. 

I can't imagine a man at arms, tasked with taking out a patrol of mounted archers, as insisting that he must wear full armour and be on a barded horse. I can see him wearing part of his harness, maybe lightening it with a brigandine, or whatever else suited the role, but he'd make himself 'fit for mission'. He's still a man at arms, whatever you take that as being, still paid the same, but at that particular time not fully suited and booted. Likewise his stout Yeomen, paid as archers, dressed as archers, but are they going to dismount to raid a village? If they have any riding skill, I think not. 
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 12, 2013, 12:41:39 PM
Indeed, and from study of the HYW database, archers could and did become men-at-arms, as well as serving as a mounted archer in one year, but dropping down to an archer sometime latter - or visa versa.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 12, 2013, 01:00:29 PM
Social degradation and gentrification happened over time, sure, but I was thinking more of 'flexibility'. Our man at arms (for example) might need to do 'x' one day and 'y' another, and was quite comfortable and able to switch between roles as the need arose.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 12, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
Social degradation and gentrification happened over time, sure, but I was thinking more of 'flexibility'. Our man at arms (for example) might need to do 'x' one day and 'y' another, and was quite comfortable and able to switch between roles as the need arose.

Understood, and I wasn't meaning to suggest one had to become gentry to serve and be paid as a man-at-arms during the HYW (nor perhaps the WotR) or that dropping from mounted to foot archer was a sign of social degradation.

Captains might offer various incentives to attract quality recruits in times of high competition to fulfil their indenture. Moreover, horses were as vulnerable as men, if not more so, to the dangers of campaigning. A mounted archer who cannot replace his mount during a time of high demand, might have to register as a foot archer for the next contract without a change of social status. Similarly a captain who could provide twenty mounts one year might only be able to provide fifteen the next - or they may have decided that the return was insufficient to offset the loss incurred when a mount (of sufficient quality to pass muster) died on campaign. This was business after all  ;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 12, 2013, 03:53:38 PM
Medieval Adventures is definitely the learned corner of LAF  ;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 12, 2013, 08:15:23 PM
Medieval Adventures is definitely the learned corner of LAF  ;)

Yeah, I read a book once. ;)

Joking apart, until I got to study it, I never realised the complexity of the topic. I understand why people spend their lives studying the era (or indeed why they have to). There's volumes of stuff I don't know about and that's without stepping outside the military aspects... quite surprising for a period we picture as having comparatively little documentary evidence. Yet some of the quite simple questions, we don't have anything concrete for.

Captains might offer various incentives to attract quality recruits in times of high competition to fulfil their indenture. Moreover, horses were as vulnerable as men, if not more so, to the dangers of campaigning. A mounted archer who cannot replace his mount during a time of high demand, might have to register as a foot archer for the next contract without a change of social status. Similarly a captain who could provide twenty mounts one year might only be able to provide fifteen the next - or they may have decided that the return was insufficient to offset the loss incurred when a mount (of sufficient quality to pass muster) died on campaign. This was business after all  ;)

Yes, there was some social mobility to a point, but there was quite a gulf between income from the highest 'class' of archer to lowest level of the men at arms. As you say 'hard times' might result in signing on at a rate lower than previously. It was easier for the archers as they had a way to go, but a man at arms without a horse, or who had pawned his armour (or had it seized for debt), was out of the game altogether, unless he could loan some armour, or borrow money.
 
They bent over backwards to keep hold of their retainers generally though. John Howard (Duke of Norfolk), set one archer up with a house, a bow that cost more than one he bought for himself (and a boar spear), some gowns for his wife, a jacket each year for the archer, all on top of his pay. He did similar things with others too.

On the other side of the coin though, in Calais, one of the Pastons asked his brother to recruit a couple of archers as servants, to be paid less than the going rate. He got them, but in a year they were on the garrison strength as archers, so that might have been offered to offset the lower rate initially.  
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 13, 2013, 09:21:19 AM
Indeed, and some of the difference in pay was to offset equine attrition on campaign and their maintenance in times of peace. As you know, an alternate option was to pay a lower wage, but reimburse the value of a lost mount (based on an inspection held at muster) - the name for which escapes me for the moment  :o

I don't think one can impose too hard and fast rules on social class. At times and in some sources, it can appear quite rigid. At other times, especially in time of war or trial, things seem less fixed. There seem to have been a near constant process of 'negotiation' on the borders between 'classes'.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 13, 2013, 09:49:51 AM
To a point I would agree... the 'new money' of the Gentry appear somewhat more fluid and open in their make up, but the nobles themselves seem somewhat of a closed group. While there seems to be evidence that an archer could cross the line and become a man at arms (and possibly vice-versa), I'm aware of only one man at arms who was ennobled (became an hereditary peer, as opposed to just being 'knighted').

There must have been some 'payment in kind' (or not) at various times, as the rates of pay remained fairly static for around a hundred years, while living costs went up and down. Shares in booty, which did not get mentioned in the Teller's Rolls and documents like that, may have been the method, or as you say, things like 'horse insurance'. Obviously in the WotR though, there was no booty to share and getting the job done before the bulk of your men were entitled to pay, was the overriding concern.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: 15thpanzer on October 13, 2013, 04:02:59 PM
One simple, unanswerable question that led to a great thread of opinions. Personally I mix my ratios up depending upon the units geographical location a la Arlequin's note on wealth and skill. Plus we all know painting heavy had weapon troops is much more fun than painting archers, so for me 1:1 to 2:1 archers.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 14, 2013, 07:28:01 AM
Gentlemen, i salute you all.

Fun and informative. I was particularly interested (a tangent i grant you) on the Billmen being the lesser troop-types. Being ill-informed, i had always thought that they would have been the boys to get up-front and personal, along with the MAA. Of course, it makes perfect sense that the archers were the real backbone of the army and that not all MAA during this period were all that.

I started with the wild and whacky notion of using all Front Rank figures and now i'm stuck with it.

However, it pleases me that my army is certainly on the right track. As things stand at present, using 24 man units (less for cavalry) once all archers are painted i shall have:

1 x mounted MAA*
1 x dismounted MAA
3 x Billmen
1 x Scottish Mercenary Spearmen
7 x Archers
1 x Prickers/Light Cavalry
[1 x small xbowmen
 1 x small handgunners
 1 x medium cannon/crew]

So plenty of options for a typical sized evenings game.

* Shall we start a anew for the use of mounted MAA in gaming terms?

Again, i had thought they were the exception rather than the rule but the more i read on the subject the more i think they were involved in most battles of the period, albeit not in deciding the outcomes. Let's leave aside the fact that once an army broke the victors were mounting up and after them with the hammers ...
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 14, 2013, 11:59:48 AM
I'd certainly have a unit of mounted MAA available even if you didn't use it in every battle.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: shandy on October 14, 2013, 01:41:55 PM
Thanks everybody for that great thread! There's a lot of information that got me pondering. In game terms, what Arlequin said about Archers, Billmen and MAA being almost equal in melee skills would mean that there are no big differences - like dice bonus etc. - in the stats of the troops (except for a better saving throw for troops on full armor). Would you agree? This would make archers more powerful than I thought; however one could limit their ammo and reduce the effects of archery (causing more disorder than casualties). I plan to use the Sharp Practice rules by TFL, which makes even more sense after what I have read here  ;)
Thanks again for the great discussion!
Cheers,
Shandy
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 14, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
Personally I wouldn't put too high a hth value on an archer, if only for the fact that their motivation, training and weaponry is not going to be at the same level of effectiveness as someone whose role is primarily that of heavy infantry.

If it was me, I'd have them as a 'standard' light or medium infantry level of hth ability (whatever that may be) to reflect this. Certainly I would expect ranged combat to be their speciality and hth a fairly effective secondary option.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 14, 2013, 02:12:04 PM
Well the billmen would still get into it, it's not like they could do anything else. It's just that in terms of prior experience, protection and being a preferred troop type, they were bottom of the scale. Any confusion seems to come with the creation of a 'Retinue Billman' class somewhere along the line (and pretty recently too).
 
'Retinue Billmen' would have been included within the men at arms and were termed 'men at arms' back in the day. Both men at arms and the ordinary standard billmen may even have been mixed together when a force deployed, the better quality minority 'stiffening' the low quality majority. Alternatively they may have just stood to the rear of their local archers... nobody really knows. I'm inclined to think a local contingent would be kept together for the sake of morale, but nobody really knows.  

As for mounted troops, that's also up in the air. I'm a bit pragmatic about it. Before the WotR English armies almost invariably dismounted. After the WotR you have regular use of light horse, demilances and a few 'Gentlemen at Arms'. They didn't wake up one morning and think, "well we're Tudors now, better change things", so at some point between c.1450 and 1500-ish there was a move towards using mounted troops and away from wholly dismounted forces.

Whatever you decide your Man at Arms to Archer to Bill ratio is, remember that your mounted Men at Arms are a finite quantity, so whatever you mount up should still be reflected in the total of them in the army as a whole.

Your army seems reasonable to me, not that I could convincingly argue otherwise, as we've discovered in this thread. ;-)

Personally I wouldn't put too high a hth value on an archer, if only for the fact that their motivation, training and weaponry is not going to be at the same level of effectiveness as someone whose role is primarily that of heavy infantry.

True to a point. Certainly I'd expect a Man at Arms to be generally better on the whole than an Archer, skill-wise. But the 'levy' billman's primary role was perhaps ploughing a field or digging ditches, playing football and getting drunk on Sundays, while watching the mugs play with their bows and not as heavy infantry.

Medieval commanders certainly favoured the Archer over pretty much everything else, even to the point that in 1415 and 1475, if only for their cheapness, they were favoured over all other types. Nobody recruited billmen to serve in France.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 14, 2013, 02:45:49 PM
In my Percy Retinue list i have used the MAA and Scots Mercenaries as Heavy Infantry, the Retinue Bill as Medium Infantry and the Archers as Light Infantry (although i'm minded to give the (Retinue) Archers the option of being Medium Infantry if you pay the points - perhaps limited to the number of Bill units you have (or not!!))

We tend to play pointed games of HC in an evening and bung on what you have for large games at wkds
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 14, 2013, 04:44:13 PM
True to a point. Certainly I'd expect a Man at Arms to be generally better on the whole than an Archer, skill-wise. But the 'levy' billman's primary role was perhaps ploughing a field or digging ditches, playing football and getting drunk on Sundays, while watching the mugs play with their bows and not as heavy infantry.


I think I worded it badly. I was trying to say I wouldn't put the archers and MAA on an equal footing hth-wise (even if we give the MAA better armour). The billmen levy and archers I would think to be much of a muchness.

Depending on the complexity of the system and your own leanings, I would also welcome the option of having 'levy' bowmen and 'professional' bowmen, with the associated differences. But then, this could be because I have a thing about longbows.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 14, 2013, 07:59:21 PM
Ok, I get you now. Yes certainly, working on 'typical' examples there would be a general scale, with the inevitable exceptions along the way, with Men at Arms at the top end. I can also accept that in terms of the bottom end, who's best at HtH might be somewhat clouded, particularly when some archers may not have had much more than a dagger, or short sword. Skilled with a bow doesn't equate with being an experienced soldier after all.

If you're playing a skirmish or 1:1 game these things are quite important, as is the case if you believe troops were formed into distinctive groups based on type and class in the context of larger battles. If on the other hand you believe they formed up based on the locale they were raised from, or as a sub-part of a magnate's contingent (perhaps internally divided by function, a bit like an ECW regiment, with bows on the 'wings', or something like that), then it becomes less so and instead you get a collection of units that are all pretty much the same within a given range of ability (which sounds a little dull tbh).

I'm at a loss as to which might have been the case and indeed how these guys formed up or operated... It's one of the questions I was never able to answer in any satisfying way to myself and one reason why I don't actually game the period.

lol

Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 15, 2013, 07:10:02 AM
Well Gents, all i all throw into the mix is to say that HC allows your Archers to be Levy (light infantry) or "Retinue" (medium infantry) and could also operate as a sub-unit of Billmen/MAA.

As such, it works for me  :)

Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 15, 2013, 07:44:42 AM
Other than to have the option of fielding them in combined units of bows and bills, all the bases seem to be covered there. I honestly can't say (and won't guess) how they interacted in battle, so having a degree of freedom within which to 'express yourself' as far as how you think things went, would indeed be the best option.

:)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 15, 2013, 08:20:58 AM
Other than to have the option of fielding them in combined units of bows and bills, all the bases seem to be covered there. I honestly can't say (and won't guess) how they interacted in battle, so having a degree of freedom within which to 'express yourself' as far as how you think things went, would indeed be the best option.

:)

Sorry, i should have said, there's also an option (Crusader list which i've adapted slightly to suit WotR) to combine Bills/Bowmen.

I was starting to think that combined Bills/Bows was a bit of a red-herring, in that it didn't happen. But as you said, nobody really knows how they fought.

Best,

James
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 15, 2013, 08:53:10 AM
Indeed they don't know. There are a considerable number of people willing to guess though.  ;)

Typically 'backwards transposition' is used, whereby you take something that happened later and try to make it fit earlier. There's also your particular belief on what 'combined' units could and couldn't do in the terms of the ability of that army, at that particular time. Whether they were just a case of forming all the men of a particular contingent/geographical area, whatever their weapons, up together and telling the bills to keep to the back for a bit, or something somewhat more complex (archers on the flanks, or falling back to the flanks etc.), is impossible to tell.

The usual comparison is with the Burgundians, who under Charles, were experimenting with somewhat complex manoeuvres (for the day at least). However he had the luxury of a consistent body of men, all year round, with which to try things out with. In the WotR most of the troops were in the fields one day and within a couple of weeks had marched, fought a battle and then returned to them. What sort of 'military skills' that might be conveyed in such a time you can work out to your own satisfaction... but I doubt they'd be ready to take part in the Edinburgh Military Tattoo.

;)

   
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 15, 2013, 09:23:25 AM
I think this thread should be titled 'Wars of the Roses - unanswerable questions answered' and made a sticky!  :)

The whole topic of how men were organised in the field is interesting. I've gone with retinues in mixed units of bows, bills and men at arms.
I cannot see that Sir Fred Bloggs would have turned up to muster with his lord, and then separated out his men to send them off in different directions to go and join the various different 'arms'. Seems much more likely to me (based on nothing more than my ill-informed opinion :)) that Sir Fred would have kept his lads together. Yes, his longbowmen might have stepped forward from the line and done their business, and then stepped back to let Sir Fred and his better armed and armoured friends, relatives and employees step forward for the clash of arms itself. But I can't imagine that all the bowmen, billmen. etc were grouped into great bodies of one troop type, separated from their own retinues.

I also think the point about billmen and MAA is instructive. Certainly if, like me, your WOTR wargames force is based on Perry plastic figures, then it's probably predicated on the assumptions built into the composition of the troop types in the box:
That the force is mainly composed of well armed and uniformed 'professional' longbowmen and billmen, helmeted, part armoured, wearing livery coats. You can decide on the ratio of bows to bills, but they are basically two types of rank and file professional infantry - hand to hand or missile specialists. Then on top of this, you have a much smaller proportion of fully plate armoured 'knights', who are the leaders and top hand-to-hand specialists.

Actually, Arlequin's proposition sounds a lot more persuasive, viz:
- The better armed, armoured and equipped 'billmen' probably ranked up alongside the few wealthy, upper crust fellows with plate armour. Together, all these hand to hand specialists counted as 'men at arms'.
- The longbowmen were good quality missile specialists, reasonably well equipped - some liveried, some perhaps not, but all reliably capable of discharging their basic function of shooting at the enemy.
- The actual 'billmen' - viz poorly equipped types with basic polearms, staves or agricultural implements, were probably more of a rabble - not armoured, not well armed, and not uniformed, liveried or trained to any great extent. We don't know what proportion of the overall force this rabble or levy would have formed, but it could have been quite significant. And they ain't represented anywhere in the Perry range.

Well, maybe they didn't exist after all, and forces were only ever composed of trained, professional soldiers (nobility and men at arms), or skilled longbowmen...

But if we take Shakespeare as some kind of reference point... Well, admittedly he was writing over a 100 years after the WOTR, but his famous recruiting scene in Henry IV part 2, certainly shows the process of raising men in the countryside, and caricatures this as basically pressing ill-armed, untrained dregs into the armies of the various Lords, simply to bulk out the muster roll.
Can we take this as evidence?
I would think to some extent yes. Shakespeare was a lot closer to that world than we are now - and there's a huge ring of truth underlying a lot of what he shows about the contemporary English way of life, across many of his plays...

 
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on October 15, 2013, 12:41:08 PM
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Shakespeare had his own version of R. Lee Ermey to put him straight  lol
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 15, 2013, 12:48:09 PM
My army started life as mixed units of bills/archers and then i allowed a clubmate to convince me to buy more archers.

Rearrange these words "door...on ... open ... pushing ... an"  lol
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 15, 2013, 02:05:33 PM
Crikey... I've just discovered I'd got into the habit of writing long posts but not so much in the habit of reading them.  ;)

You're pretty much spot on to my mind though and I think the Shakespeare analogy is valid, as other than weapons and styles of armour and dress, the military of his time was not that much different in how it was raised. It is very difficult too, to separate the 'social' from the 'military' aspects of the time, that division is quite a relatively recent concept.

To picture how things worked overall, the typical Noble/Captain was not unlike the typical PMC company of today, but much smaller in scale. His household would largely be the full-time operatives used in the day today business of 'security' work (Professional archers and men at arms). On top of these you have the cleaning company which has the contract to clean the offices, the stationary suppliers, the garage who maintains the company's domestic vehicles and other non-military functions. All of these are usually on contracts and it was the same back then, they were just called indentures.

In the 15th Century, it would be unsurprising to find written into these contracts, that besides these mundane functions, they might also have to don armour and tool up to work for the contracting company from time to time, if their operations suddenly expanded. Some of these 'service' companies might have contracts with several similar companies, which obviously creates a conflict of interest for them when the going gets tough. Such a concept is unthinkable in our world, but quite common back then.  

Whatever your income back then, the law defined your military position in the hierarchy, for when you were required to serve the 'national interest' and in terms of what you were to bring to the show. Obviously these were minimums and if you were routinely engaged in such things as your main line of employment, you would probably have somewhat more than the minimum. At the top were the Nobles, Knights and Gentry - Fully armoured, mounted and with a variety of weapons. Next down were a sort of vague class, who were not required to exactly wear quite full armour, but had to be mounted and armed (sword and lance or pole-axe etc), we might call these 'lesser men at arms', or 'retinue billmen/spearmen/currours/whatever'. At that time, the whole lot, plus the Nobles et al, were simply termed 'Men at Arms'.

About middle income point is the separation between 'Men at Arms' and 'Archers', with the higher income of the archers required to wear the same standard of kit (and mount) as the 'lesser men at arms', but swapping out the pole-axe or lance for a bow. The difference between the two types in essence being a theoretical penny difference in income. Moving down the scale, next to go is the requirement for the archer to be mounted, then reductions to the level of armour required, right down to the archer just being expected to have a bow and a dagger. We are now at the typical yearly income point of a semi-skilled man (£2). Below that level, while 'Free men' were still required to serve, they weren't expected to bring much; a spear, staff or bill, armour if they had it and some did.

One thing to remember however, was that the stipulation was that, nowhere did the law say that an individual had to personally serve himself, but that he had to 'provide' a man so equipped. The option was always there to provide a substitute for your own service. The requirements didn't end at an individual level either and if you had enough income, besides providing a man at arms, you might also have to provide one or more lesser men at arms, or the varying degrees of archer on top. In terms of raising troops from a given area, the 'Falstaff Gambit' of taking bribes to overlook individuals and just recruiting those who couldn't afford to pay them was almost likely to have been fairly widespread, but obviously there is no documentary evidence for this. However if Shakespeare's audience could laugh about it, it must have been 'known'. I won't go into the fudging of reported income to avoid any or part of all this.  

In any village, town or county, you had a cross-section of all these types in varying quantities. In one village the 'top man' might be a mounted archer, in another he might be slightly better off and be required to be a 'lesser man at arms'. Some villages might have two such individuals, others none. The rest would be of varying numbers of the other levels. Legally these were all the men who formed the 'shire levy contingents'. However all of these were also the men who served within the retinues of the various magnates and captains, whether as full-time or part-time members.

In the turbulent times they faced, many of the richer archers and the lesser men at arms, were already contracted or 'had an understanding' with someone higher up the social or political chain, whether it was in terms of military service and/or political support in local politics... the 'affinities' you hear so much about and which polarised whole areas seemingly overnight. With these guys already committed to one side or another, when it came time to issue a Commission of Array to raise men, the cream were largely already committed one way or another... which just largely left the poorer individuals to be called up, along with a few of the richer types, who had managed to stay out of things until then.

As I mentioned previously, if a somewhat low-level demand for an array of 28,000 archers across England, could only potentially produce something like 21,000 (iirc), due to so many already being signed-up to various lords, then it doesn't take much to imagine just how big a force some of these lords could actually raise, on top of their actual households and those of their closest supporters or indentured 'captains', as well as their supporters and so on. Buckingham had 3,000 livery jackets made up in 1483 for just his own crew and a junior Percy managed to collect 1,000 men in York alone during their pre-war dispute with the Nevilles. Many of the guys given these livery jackets would be the 'poor ill-equipped' types to a point, so you can still get away with the Perry figures to represent them.

So... for what it's worth, my opinion...

I would be surprised if a contingent drawn from a particular village, half-hundred, or whatever would be divided up overly much. There are morale and cohesion advantages to this, not least that running away from a group of strangers, or holding back in the attack, has less 'social impact' than running away from a group which includes family and community members. The same idea was behind the 'Pals Battalions' of the Great War. I can imagine that local leading individuals would be delegated to lead such groups too; they already have 'deference' and 'respect' from the men (or fear and loathing in some cases maybe).

In the main then, I'd expect mixed units (however you want to interpret that), based on locality, possibly stiffened by some of the 'household' and 'retinue' men, either as added muscle, or as leaders. Largely what Captain Blood, Silent Invaders and others have been doing in their games, but on a larger scale. Such groups would form the 'battle line'. There is still scope for the collection of the remaining household men to form 'plomps of spears' (a unit of men at arms in other words), or other detached 'special' units, but there would not be many of them in relation to the 'masses'.

The typical 'household' varied between 20 to 150 men, depending on wealth, or how much of a demonstration of 'power' you wanted to make. Even with those of your supporters/retainers, they might only number less than 500 out of the potential maximum of 2-3,000 troops you could raise overall. Deduct those you detail to lead individual groups and groups of groups etc, and it will take a chunk away from the total. What's left are your 'elites' or your vanguard, whatever.

In terms of army lists and the like, I've always imagined the divisions of 'household', 'retinue' and 'levy' as just representing the 'average' of ability and quality across a unit as a whole. If I was making up such a unit, I would essentially use all of the figure types to represent it, but just vary the proportions of them within each one. More men at arms in a household unit, considerably less in a levy one, with a 'retinue' unit somewhere in between the two.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Ray Rivers on October 15, 2013, 05:26:59 PM
Excellent read... Bravo!

In terms of army lists and the like, I've always imagined the divisions of 'household', 'retinue' and 'levy' as just representing the 'average' of ability and quality across a unit as a whole. If I was making up such a unit, I would essentially use all of the figure types to represent it, but just vary the proportions of them within each one. More men at arms in a household unit, considerably less in a levy one, with a 'retinue' unit somewhere in between the two.

That is how I am doing my WotR Impetus units. "Men-at-arms" units have a majority of fully armored figures with some unarmored ones, while "Billmen" will have a majority of unarmored minis with some armored ones. Figure this will make them very easy to identify on the table.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: fastolfrus on October 15, 2013, 05:35:37 PM
HC ?
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 15, 2013, 07:52:54 PM
Hail Caesar.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 15, 2013, 09:20:01 PM
Excellent read... Bravo!

That is how I am doing my WotR Impetus units. "Men-at-arms" units have a majority of fully armored figures with some unarmored ones, while "Billmen" will have a majority of unarmored minis with some armored ones. Figure this will make them very easy to identify on the table.

In a large figure to man scale game, for my money I think that should be about as close a representation of the real thing as you could get.

Thanks for reading though, it looked a lot shorter when I was typing it, you must be a glutton for punishment.  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Ray Rivers on October 15, 2013, 10:59:41 PM
Thanks for reading though, it looked a lot shorter when I was typing it, you must be a glutton for punishment.  :)

In respect to military history, I think the WotRs is probably one of the most murky that I have found. Your explanation was very clear, concise and well written.

Such things are a pleasure to read.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 16, 2013, 10:30:59 AM
I love the WotR genre, but find it really tough to unpick. The way that nobles could be referred to by their title (or shortened version of), their actual name or sometimes a mix of one or the other. The fact that the titles were often based around counties or place names, and reading about the movement of people around the map ... it requires a level of concentration I find to maintain. Then, you work in sons inheritting their father's name and/or title and it's like trying to unpick a knot that keeps re-tying itself.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: max on October 16, 2013, 04:10:00 PM
As for representing them in HC, couldn't you do one unit being a retinue (or part of a larger one)? So it can shoot and fight, with varying factors for those composed of lots of professionals, or more/less archers than average, or composed mostly of 'militia' quality men.

That way, the precise way they fought is not represented, but instead works as just another part of the battle line.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 16, 2013, 09:02:48 PM
Personally I actually think that 'Pike and Shotte' are possibly more accommodating for the period than Hail Caesar... but either set isn't totally spot on.

I love the WotR genre, but find it really tough to unpick. The way that nobles could be referred to by their title (or shortened version of), their actual name or sometimes a mix of one or the other. The fact that the titles were often based around counties or place names, and reading about the movement of people around the map ... it requires a level of concentration I find to maintain. Then, you work in sons inheritting their father's name and/or title and it's like trying to unpick a knot that keeps re-tying itself.

Yes it is at the least confusing and at worst infuriating.

By and large, but with some obvious exceptions 'place' titles weren't usually too far off the mark. Okay the Duke of York's power base was in Shropshire and the King's (as Duke of Lancaster) was in Cheshire, but otherwise people like Somerset and Devon were dominant in those areas you would expect (admittedly with Somerset it was Wiltshire, Dorset and Devon, but fairly close).

Names and titles are really hard to track sometimes, especially as some individuals went through as many as four or five name/title changes in the thirty or so years of the conflicts. Some authors often pre-date the titles of individuals too, which further confuses things and indeed wastes time, if you're working across several sources and looking for one named individual under the 'wrong' title for that year. It doesn't help when you realise that a number of nobles inherited their wives titles too on marriage, so over night they become 'someone else'.

In the same way a title is no obvious indicator of wealth or power either. Lord Bonville could raise enough support to stand  up to the Earl of Devon, who was the major figure in the South West. The Duke of Somerset was weaker than both of them, as his 'wealth' came from the income of 'indulgences' (various taxes or charges that could be levied on things), rather than land. The Duke of York's main cause of complaint against Somerset, was that while both of them had advanced money for the war in France, Somerset had received indulgences that brought money in to pay off his 'loan', while those York received were worthless, or had already been collected for that year. Then there are people like Lord Cobham, who were so poor that they served as a retainer in someone else's household.

It is far more complex than you imagine at first glance indeed, pretty much as regards any aspect you choose to go for. I've said before that my studies into the period have only revealed how little I actually know. It's like an onion, if you were to peel it from the inside out... each layer unravelled reveals far more than you began with... although this onion appears to have no visible surface you could reach.

;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 16, 2013, 10:47:21 PM
Well, you know more than most of us Jim, and you've got me pondering again...

I found the best way to get the hang of many of the noble houses in the WOTR and where their powerbases were, was to play Kingmaker - which I did a lot, back when I was doing history at uni, about 30 years ago! Courtenay to Okehampton!

 ;)

I have more thoughts and questions, but shall save them for the weelend, when I might have a bit more time!
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: NurgleHH on October 17, 2013, 07:51:42 AM
Personally I actually think that 'Pike and Shotte' are possibly more accommodating for the period than Hail Caesar... but either set isn't totally spot on.

It is very difficult with WotR. The Italian Wars are played with P&S, but in the Warlord Forum most use HC. Maybe a test with both will find the useful system - HC or P&S.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 17, 2013, 08:01:34 AM
I found the best way to get the hang of many of the noble houses in the WOTR and where their powerbases were, was to play Kingmaker - which I did a lot, back when I was doing history at uni, about 30 years ago! Courtenay to Okehampton!


Snap! Man, that game could go on for days sometimes. Mercenaries! 100 Burgundian Crossbowmen!
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 17, 2013, 08:21:06 AM
Well, you know more than most of us Jim, and you've got me pondering again...

I found the best way to get the hang of many of the noble houses in the WOTR and where their powerbases were, was to play Kingmaker - which I did a lot, back when I was doing history at uni, about 30 years ago! Courtenay to Okehampton!

 ;)

I have more thoughts and questions, but shall save them for the weelend, when I might have a bit more time!


'Know' is perhaps the wrong word, I'm far less sure of myself on the topic than the time before I started looking into it and just relied on WRG, wargame mag articles and the lore as passed down by senior club members... which I fear I am becoming myself in a way. Maybe some time soon, some whippersnapper will come along and show you all how wrong I've got it.

I've presented an interpretation, using the same evidence as those who have offered their own previous interpretations. Obviously I think I have it right, but then so did they. Next bloke who comes along will no doubt think the same. It's no different in the academic world, there exists at any one time an 'accepted history', to get noticed you have to challenge the accepted version and that pretty much makes or breaks your career. LAF is a much kinder environment to do this in.

;)

Kingmaker was/is an excellent game. Not wholly accurate, but certainly good enough to base campaigns on, as a few people did. They actually did a good job of assessing the strengths of relative nobles on their cards too, shame there weren't more of them. Fitzalan to Arundel indeed.

I don't want the thread to descend (any further) into 'Arlequín pontificates on the WotR', but sure, ask away or offer thoughts. I'm more than willing to read and offer an opinion where I can, as well as see other's views too... My own come from listening to what other folk have to say and are by no means set in stone... which is what I see as being 'the problem' - people decide on something and then dig their heels in when it's challenged.

:)  

It is very difficult with WotR. The Italian Wars are played with P&S, but in the Warlord Forum most use HC. Maybe a test with both will find the useful system - HC or P&S.

I'd honestly say that both were acceptable, but neither perfect. I can't say that I've played either, but having read through them both, I went for P&S... purely on the basis that it seemed more compatible with my picture of late Medieval Warfare, which admittedly is more 'Euro-centric' than the WotR.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Hu Rhu on October 17, 2013, 01:39:39 PM
I found the best way to get the hang of many of the noble houses in the WOTR and where their powerbases were, was to play Kingmaker - which I did a lot, back when I was doing history at uni, about 30 years ago! Courtenay to Okehampton!

I have found the Perfect Captains rules A coat of Steel and their campaign game A Crown of Paper to be very helpful, not only to get a brief historical rundown on each character (Major or otherwise) but also to get a relative understanding of their power bases and their retinues.  Agreed the information is relatively crude in terms of troops types but it makes it a very useful starter for someone getting into the period. The rules are good as well and what's more you don't have to worry about MAA/Bill/Bow ratios as they are covered when you embattle your host. Highly recommended albeit slightly off Hail Cesar topic.

A link to their WOTR page is here:  http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/acop.html  for anyone who wants to avail themseleves of some useful source material. 
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 17, 2013, 01:47:35 PM
I had forgotten about those... I thought they looked quite good too. I also get the impression that a lot of time went into that project. Good call!

:)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Orlock on October 17, 2013, 05:12:49 PM
The Perfect Captain is currently updating A Coat of Steel for the later years of the war. I have introduced various club members to the rules and they have found them easy to pick up. I currently play with 15mm armies but I am upgrading to 28mm Perry miniatures.

Although the game looks daunting with the multitude of play aids it actually fits neatly together when you start deploying for battle. I find the game very fluid and it doesn't take too long too complete a battle.

I particularly like the rules for bowmen, you only have a set number of arrow markers. Once your out of them then the bowmen become lighter armed soldiers and can get stuck in, unless you decide on a resupply wagon aiding them.

Overall they give an excellent flavour for the period. I did buy HC but I never used the rules. I might still have a go with them but for now I am sticking with A Coat of Steel.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 18, 2013, 07:42:34 AM
We've tried WotR with both HC and P&S. One of our group, who is a particular fan of late medieval/renaissance (and had a small hand in producing P&S), naturally went for the latter.

However, he has come over to our view that on balance HC works better bearing in mind how supports affect combat etc

Certainly with the weapon types P&S is the obvious choice.

In fairness, you could easily use either set of rules.

James
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 18, 2013, 07:44:40 AM
As for representing them in HC, couldn't you do one unit being a retinue (or part of a larger one)? So it can shoot and fight, with varying factors for those composed of lots of professionals, or more/less archers than average, or composed mostly of 'militia' quality men.

That way, the precise way they fought is not represented, but instead works as just another part of the battle line.

If you look at the Crusader list in the Later supplement you can do just that. I've based my WotR army list on the Crusader list and just altered the Turcopoles (no missile weapons)to represent Border Horse/Prickers etc. otherwise it was a simple renaming exercise and shoe-horning in some basic artillery
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 18, 2013, 08:31:05 AM
Well experiments are the test of any theory, so if HC is doing the job, fair enough.  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 18, 2013, 08:38:26 AM
Well experiments are the test of any theory, so if HC is doing the job, fair enough.  :)

It works for us ;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: julesav on October 18, 2013, 09:14:26 AM
Hi guys

I just wanted to say 'Fantastic thread'!

I have a large 'lead-mountain' of WotR stuff which remains unused as I struggle with the 'wooliness' of our knowledge about forces etc.

My research books have mostly been sold or 'loaned onwards' now but the two items I remember as being relevant to this discussion are:

Edward IVs force for his abortive 'French expedition' had something like 16 'archers' to each other named troop-type.

There was apparently a period 'saying' that "the best place for an archer was with a billman at his back".

Obviously these are memories of what I felt were 'key points' and I could be mistaken or the sources could have been poor - I'm pretty sure the 16-1 ratio came from an Osprey book!

Cheers

Jules
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 18, 2013, 09:47:37 AM
It seems to me that the term 'archer' was sometimes used as a handy way to get supernumeraries onto the books. I seem to remember one Lord in France having his barber, cooks, grooms, etc... down as 'archers'. Did this mean they all fought as archers? I dunno, who can tell.

But with the Lord able to draw wages for an archer and having to pay for his own servants, it would seem to be an unusual aberration of human nature if the books weren't cooked every now and then!

I seems logical as well, that especially when 'on tour' as it were, the mounted archers was the perfect light cavalry (a task performed by hussars and light dragoons in later centuries), able to fill any number of handy roles away from the battlefield.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Doomsdave on October 18, 2013, 10:11:41 AM
I read every word of this thread and...


I think I love you guys
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 18, 2013, 10:26:47 AM
Hi Jules and glad you're enjoying it... I certainly am and it's great to hear other people's views, even if they're wrong!  ;)

I had the same problem myself with struggling to find a definitive solution to the things the WotR threw in my face, so I can sympathise... a lot.

Edward's Teller Rolls for 1475 are often used to justify composition of forces of the time and a number of 'explanations' of what is in black and white (or sepia and sort of dark brown) are usually offered to support any viewpoint. I'm no different, so here's mine...

First off, the expedition was a picked force for a foreign campaign. The men were selected over a period of time, required to show they were capable soldiers and that they possessed a decent standard of arms and armour. Shortfalls were addressed and large numbers of 'English Longbows' were imported from Spain to replace substandard ones owned by individual archers. As opposed to armies raised for short duration 'quick campaigns with a battle at the end', they couldn't be more different.  

Secondly, they are a record of receipts of payments made to 'captains' for their men. People have said that "If it shows so much detail in one segment (it mentions specific tradesmen), then the record of contingents, which show 'Knights', 'Spears' (men at arms) and 'Archers' must also be correct". The usual counter to this is the quite logical assumption that writing out "Knights, Spears, Archers, Billmen, Staves... et al" for each captain was quite laborious, so they grouped all of the 'others' under 'Archers' to save ink, time and writer's cramp.

While for a number of documents this might be true, the actual payments made correspond to the pay rates for the numbers and types given. If there were billmen and others hidden in the 'Archer' total, the amounts would be wrong. Next argument offered is that "Maybe the bills were paid the same as the archers?", but as we are dealing with royal accountants, this is extremely unlikely, as these guys almost certainly 'squeaked when they walked', they were so tight. It does however remain a possibility.

Thirdly, while the troop ratios 'seem wrong', this may not be the case. There is roughly one 'Knight' for each hundred men, the typical company size (although some groups of 'spears' are somewhat smaller) and the ratio of 'spears' to archers is about 1:8. It's very different to the typical 1:3 or 4 of the Agincourt era, but not so odd when you look at its allies and likely opposition. Despite having vast numbers of men at arms, French armies were around a ratio of 1:8 in terms of them, versus their mounted infantry and foot, once the Franc-Archers were added in at least. The Burgundians were 1:6 in the Ordonnance companies, but again, add in extraneous urban contingents etc, and you are looking at about 1:8 too.

Armies in Europe were getting bigger, but contained ever larger numbers of infantry. I think Edward was just going with the trend and of course with larger numbers of less well-armoured opponents, the bow would be more effective than in previous wars. Edward needed a lot of men too (it was the biggest army ever raised for a foreign war to date) and you get two foot archers for the pay of one man at arms (and as always money was an issue). As the plan was to take cities and towns and then hold them, an archer behind a wall offers more practical service than a man at arms. Slightly later small contingents supplied to Brittany and Burgundy, and those of the Tudor period are invariably listed as companies of 'xxxx Archers' too, as opposed to 'Men at Arms and Archers'... read into that what you will.

"A bow with a bill at his back"... you should have spoke up earlier... that one had slipped out of my mind and I could have used that in an earlier post.

;)

I have sort of switched between two possible options about how these contingents formed up. I've considered them being like an ECW regiment, with a solid core of men at arms, surrounded by bills, but with archers who formed up in front, but fell back to the flanks when it came time for hand strokes. I've also considered them as something more simple, in that the archers formed up in front, but fell to the rear of the men at arms/bills as things progressed. Neither of these seemed perfect to me, especially as archers appear to have got 'stuck-in' as much as anyone.

My current thoughts are that the household and retainers in any contingent, whether men at arms or archers 'probably' formed the centre, possibly with the men at arms in the middle, flanked by the archers (who could advance to form a shooting line and then fall back). On either side of this core were the levies, tenants and other 'lower grade' bodies raised by the noble who's contingent it was. These I suspect were deployed as they came... archers being in the main more well-equipped, to the fore, with the less martial bills behind them to 'bulk' the formation out. So instead of a single 'tactical' standard, you now have two, both reliant on ability and experience and playing to the relative group's strengths and weaknesses... but within the same individual formation. Obviously there is no evidence to support this and indeed it might be a bit fanciful into the bargain.    
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 18, 2013, 10:45:51 AM
It seems to me that the term 'archer' was sometimes used as a handy way to get supernumeraries onto the books. I seem to remember one Lord in France having his barber, cooks, grooms, etc... down as 'archers'. Did this mean they all fought as archers? I dunno, who can tell.

But with the Lord able to draw wages for an archer and having to pay for his own servants, it would seem to be an unusual aberration of human nature if the books weren't cooked every now and then!

I seems logical as well, that especially when 'on tour' as it were, the mounted archers was the perfect light cavalry (a task performed by hussars and light dragoons in later centuries), able to fill any number of handy roles away from the battlefield.

You snuck in while I was typing there...  ;)

It was common for people to have a 'military' and a 'civil function' within a household, so yes, someone's barber would also be an archer. He'd get pay for being an archer from the King (in the case of the 1475 campaign) and pay from his lord for the tonsuring and such. Same as the royal household, but in miniature, where you had things like 'Master of the royal bedpan', who was also a man at arms.

Nevertheless 'cooking the books' did go on... a lot, but is incredibly hard to pin down through sources. I'm sure there were a few dead guys who drew pay for a time, at the very least. In other armies they had routine musters and commissioners (themselves occasionally prone to taking a backhander) to weed that sort of stuff (although it remained rampant), as well as the loaning of equipment across a district to cover for inspection shortfalls... I doubt the English were not prone to the same scams either.  

I agree that the mounted archers, along with the 'lesser men at arms' would have been the 'light cavalry' of the day... 'ideal' I'm not so sure about. Obviously folk like the 'Border Horse' would have been perhaps the best, but the remainder was likely to have been pre-eminent by virtue of there being no other entrants. Some were quite good; the Lancastrian's at 2nd St Albans, who managed to shield an approach and a flank attack through the town, while Warwick faced the wrong way (clearly a real let down by his own men). Edward's guys in the Tewkesbury campaign were able to find, harry and keep contact with the Lancastrians, despite having fought at Barnet.

Others were not so good... two opposing armies literally marched past each other at one point (can't remember for the life of me when it was though, but it was early in the wars). It was the same across Europe though, which is why the Stradiots, Hussars and other types were able to take the role over and become the epitome of the type. Nevertheless the whole point of having mounted archers was for 'raiding', a role they began as a support for the men at arms, but later became its primary element.  

*Edit* - I just remembered that one of the chroniclers, who was part of a contingent from London, did a fair bit of whining about the 'afore riders', although he didn't say much about the battles. He complained of them stripping the area bare of what could be bought and grabbing the best billets... sounds like the usual infantry complaints about cavalry to me.

;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Cubs on October 18, 2013, 11:21:46 AM
I've always regarded actual fighting as being very much a secondary job for light cavalry, their main ones being scouting, supply (nicking stuff), escort duty, carrying messages and generally filling in any number of useful roles away from the battlefield itself.
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 18, 2013, 11:23:33 AM
"sounds like the usual infantry complaints about cavalry to me."

My brother was in the 13/18th and the tankies used to tease the [newbie] grunts by making out that they could get tea out of the back of the tank and then p*ss themselves laughing (from inside the tank i suspect) while the foot-sloggers poked and prodded looking for the dispenser ...

But i digress  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 18, 2013, 12:09:38 PM
I've always regarded actual fighting as being very much a secondary job for light cavalry, their main ones being scouting, supply (nicking stuff), escort duty, carrying messages and generally filling in any number of useful roles away from the battlefield itself.

Certainly, but I gather they were somewhat more flexible as regards actual roles back then, which is perhaps why they didn't particularly excel in any of them, other than which particular aspect they as individuals preferred to be doing. I've no doubt that the route of march was marked by a trail of 'dry' inns and pregnant wistful wenches, rather than a trail of enemy dead though.  
;)

"sounds like the usual infantry complaints about cavalry to me."

My brother was in the 13/18th and the tankies used to tease the [newbie] grunts by making out that they could get tea out of the back of the tank and then p*ss themselves laughing (from inside the tank i suspect) while the foot-sloggers poked and prodded looking for the dispenser ...

But i digress  :)

Do you remember the old Army Recruitment Ads? The one that started with "I'm Bill and I'm a born leader..." or something like that, showed tankies all drinking tea, so assuming it was on tap in a Chieftain is believable.
lol
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: wrgmr1 on October 19, 2013, 04:45:31 AM
Just found this thread, late to the ball, excellent read gentlemen, my compliments.

Our group plays WOR and Renaissance games using Armati 2 rules. Currently I'm painting up approx 350 Front Rank Burgundians for these games. I'm nuts, I know.

This rule set was originally written with ancients in mind although the WOR armies seem to work fairly well.
Archery can make big difference depending on the dice luck. I've seen games where it was decided almost entirely by longbows. With one side doing more damage and winning the cavalry battles.
Other times the Bill and MA's get into a large scrum and fight it out to a conclusion.

The army lists really don't reflect what any of you are talking about concerning ratios.
All are units:

Archers 9
Bill 6
Mounted Knights 3
Dismounted men at arms 2
Light infantry 1
Skirmishers 2

This is approx what a single size core army plus 75 points would look like. A double core and 150 points would be approx double these numbers.
My guess would be that they were tailored to make it game worthy.

Your thoughts gentlemen?
Cheers,
Thomas

Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 19, 2013, 07:52:27 AM
Hi Thomas, glad you've enjoyed the thread... I think it sort of snowballed from H.M.'s original question though.  lol

There are no eyewitness accounts of WotR battles and nothing but fragments of detail about the composition of forces of the time. Some people draw comparisons with the 'professional' armies which fought in the French Wars, other backtrack from the Tudor era... which I suspect might be a bit closer to the mark than the former.

The Army list is therefore as valid as anybody else's interpretation. I'm not sure who the 'Light Infantry' and 'Skirmishers' are supposed to represent, but there's no reason to suppose there were/weren't any. The mix of troop types seems reasonable enough too, although for my tastes there may be too much in the way of 'Men at Arms' and 'Mounted Knights' in total... although I've nothing I can back that up with as far as sources go.

If the lists and the rules give a good fun game and the forces have equal access to similar troop types, that's the important test I would think.

:)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 19, 2013, 10:15:34 AM
Hmmm.

Well, from a strong position of ignorant bliss, I've been giving this some thought and trying to make sense of the many contradictions in the evidence and terminology...

Seems to me that the problem is we are trying to make sense of troop types, classifications and proportions, against a whole range of different dimensions, and then trying to make these fit into a simple percentage classification.

This is probably a fool's errand and involves a lot of speculation because the evidence is so thin and the variables so many...

Armoured or unarmoured? (Or part armoured?)
Social standing or no social standing?
Skilled or unskilled?
Full-time professional or levied part-timer?
Bow, bill, or something else entirely?

Personally, I think the whole nomenclature thing is confusing and doesn't help. As Arlequin points out, 'men-at-arms' by this stage appears to wrap in all full-time, well-equipped soldiers, be they fully-armoured nobles or partly-armoured, indentured, professional employees of a lower social rank.

Maybe it would be helpful (in my mind at least) to revert to the more traditional classification we're all familiar with from earlier medieval periods?

So 'Knights' are basically the lords, gentry, monied or mercantile upper and upper middle classes. They are not all literally 'knights', but the equivalent of the old knightly class. In this period they fight mainly on foot with poleaxes or hand weapons, and wear expensive suits of armour. They're trained and skilled for the most part - although not 'professional' (paid full-time) soldiers as such, since it's a lifestyle for them - part and parcel of being from the top few tiers of society. They are brought up in the tradition of arms. Having to fight is always a possibility for their class. These 'knights' probably only make up 5%-10% of any given force, but provide the leadership and the cutting edge. They have most invested in the outcome - because they have the most invested in the society of their day in terms of power, wealth and prestige.

Then you have the true 'men at arms' - professional, paid, full time soldiers employed and liveried by lords, nobles, gentry or other interests. These tend to be well-equipped, with more or less armour.
Some are trained and skilled archers, some are bruisers who fight right in there at the cutting edge alongside their 'knightly' employers, with hand weapons, poleaxes, polearms. These two types of 'men-at-arms' make up perhaps another 10% - 20% of any given force.

Next, you have skilled longbowmen, from the English yeoman tradition. Lower middle class foresters, woodsmen, farmers. They're not full-time paid professional soldiers - but they are skilled longbowmen, trained from a young age, and used to being called upon in times of war. They might have some minimal armour, helmets, hand weapons. They might even get a livery coat from their lord or employer. They make up perhaps another 25% or so of any given force.

Finally, you have the rest - the unskilled men (who don't feature in the Perry catalogue). Pressed or bribed into service a la Falstaff. They can't use a longbow because they haven't trained. They might have some little training or skill at arms or brawling - but many of them will be raw. They're armed with bills, staves, spears. Old swords or daggers for a few lucky ones. They don't have any armour to speak of, and the bosses probably don't even invest the cost of a livery coat in these troops. Maybe just a tin badge or field sign of some kind to indicate their alliegance. I don't really understand the role of these troops - cannon fodder, or just to bulk up the line? They don't have much invested in the outcome - except they might end up dead if they're on the losing side... So are quite likely to turn and run as soon as the tide of battle starts to swing against them... They comprise perhaps as much as 30% - 40% of any given force - although there might be very few of them in a small battle, where the bosses haven't had time to levy many such low-grade men, and are reliant on their professional and skilled men to a much greater extent...

I venture a schematic.

Feel free to rip it apart  :D

Plausible?

(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/14/577_19_10_13_12_02_15.jpg)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 19, 2013, 12:49:46 PM
Captain, you pretty much have it as far as I'm concerned... just some tidying required in my opinion.

Seems to me that the problem is we are trying to make sense of troop types, classifications and proportions, against a whole range of different dimensions, and then trying to make these fit into a simple percentage classification.

That's part of the problem. Just like today's society, 15th Century society existed in several dimensions. One man could be both a retainer and liable to serve under a commission of array at the same time. Under the law he was required to own and maintain a set minimum level of equipment for potential service to the crown. If he was a retainer, or a 'veteran', he would probably have equipment in addition to the 'set standard', whether hand-me-down, bought or gifted by a grateful employer.

Besides military functions people often had civil functions too. Picture the staff at Downton Abbey. Every one of the males, besides their duties, would also be a soldier, unless age or infirmity prevented them. They were called 'retainers', which is confusing as 'Lord Downton' (or whatever his title is), could himself be a 'retainer' (paid or unpaid) of another noble. Retainers could live both within the household as 'full time' members, or outside as 'part-time' members (the guy who runs the Lord's mill, or who runs his inn, whatever the relationship, be it as a full-time service function, 'occasional hired help', or as a tenant). In other words, if you were reliant on an individual for work, paid your rent to him or had any similar form of social interaction with him, odds were that you also provided military service to him as well.


Personally, I think the whole nomenclature thing is confusing and doesn't help. As Arlequin points out, 'men-at-arms' by this stage appears to wrap in all full-time, well-equipped soldiers, be they fully-armoured nobles or partly-armoured, indentured, professional employees of a lower social rank... snip

We haven't really helped ourselves here, as successive historians, rule writers, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, have added to a very simple set of terms which were current at the time.

The schematic does make things easier by far, so...

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-p6OUwAzxSaw/UmJzwuJ8ESI/AAAAAAAAP1s/gdz-vBwKKsA/w584-h493-no/Medieval.gif)

That's pretty much how the 15th Century English socio-military structure existed by income, 'troop classification' and levels of equipment provided (to the letter of the law). As a term of reference, there were about 3,000 individuals whose income (as head of a family, which might include a son or two) fell above the £25 threshold in the whole of England and Wales, out of a population of about 3 to 5 million. In illustrative terms £2 p.a. might be equivalent to somebody bringing in about £10k p.a. today, so literally this was pretty much the 'poverty line'. If your salary now is around £30k, you would fall into the lower reaches of the 'Spears' category.

Maybe it would be helpful (in my mind at least) to revert to the more traditional classification we're all familiar with from earlier medieval periods?

A 'Knight' (hereditary noble) in a domestic force would almost invariably be a leader, usually a captain of around a hundred men (be they archers or spears, or both). Some would be leaders of several hundreds, each led by a Knight. A unit of mounted 'Knights' is almost certainly anachronistic.

There's little to suggest any form of separation across the 'Spears', other than pay, terms and conditions, they all seem to have been lumped together on the battlefield, as far as we can tell. The only variable would be in terms of the 'average' in terms of levels of equipment and expertise within any given 'unit'.

Your archers will be very much a mixed bag in any way you want to look at it. All archers will be 'skilled archers' in a 'professional' force, they wouldn't employ you without proof of ability. 'Skilled archer' is not the same as 'experienced soldier' however. Somebody who has only shot at targets not being the same as one having fought in a battle.

In units raised by commissions of array, or from amongst a Lord's tenants and similar situations, skill with a bow is 'assumed'... they kept passing laws to keep people practising, so there must have been an underlying problem. People turned up with what they were required to have... what any captain chose to take from within such a motley group was on his own recognisances. The bigger the group, the lower the overall quality, on the basis that he'd know who his best options were.

His final force would be a mix of groups... his household and retainers probably divided into Spears and Mounted Archers and then men raised from his estates and those of his friends and admirers. Almost certainly most, if not all, were liveried up. The quality of man probably indicated by the quality of the livery jacket (besides the state of his kit). Troops raised by commission, on the other hand, unless they were raised by a town or city, are unlikely to have liveries and yes, some field sign or scrap of cloth tied to one arm, is likely to be the indicator of whose side they are on (no proof of this though).

So... finally the billmen, or more correctly 'the Footmen'. Why raise them if they sucked big time? The simple answer is that if you don't the enemy might, or that they are cheap should you have to pay them, or that they are free and better than no men. If you are paying troops for a foreign adventure and money is tight, you wouldn't bother, but in domestic conflicts these guys are free for a time and if you hold more land than your opponent you also have an advantage... as much as I run them down, a bloke with just a staff (especially if he can use it and it is the original English martial art after all) can be pretty damn dangerous... a group of them more so. If your opponent hasn't raised his... tough luck buster!
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Plynkes on October 19, 2013, 12:55:27 PM
'Lord Downton' (or whatever his title is)...

Lord Grantham.

Let me just be clear that the fact of my knowing this should not be taken as a reflection of my TV viewing habits.  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 19, 2013, 01:06:48 PM
Lord Grantham.

Let me just be clear that the fact of my knowing this should not be taken as a reflection of my TV viewing habits.  :)

Of course not... whatever you say.  ;)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Silent Invader on October 19, 2013, 02:20:10 PM
Just picked up on this thread and have to say that it is totally bloody brilliant.

For my army, they can either fight as distinct bands with their top nob at the centre or have men tasked elsewhere .... All helped by being based as singles.

I got round the conundrum of unit building by using a very loose formulaic approach ... I decide on the unit size (some start small but might grow over time) then just pick parts from the Perry boxes to get a mix that I like (without repitititions).

Here's large and small units from the OOB spreadsheet that indicates the underlying formulae.

(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/14/2031_19_10_13_3_45_28_0.jpg)

(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/14/2031_19_10_13_3_45_28_1.jpg)

Referencing back to the earlier Blood/Arlequin schematic, these two units produce overall ratios of:

NB:I have classed retinue halberd as "spears" and retinue archers as "mounted archers" (but the horses are parked with those of the spears!); I have also excluded command and control elements as they distort the ratios for small units

LARGER UNIT

Spears 8
Mounted Archers 6
Archers 9
Footmen 21

= broadly 3:2:3:7
= even more broadly 1:1:1:2

SMALLER UNIT

Spears 3
Mounted Archers 2
Archers 3
Footmen 7

= broadly 1:1:1:2
= if you combine the archers 1:2:2
= if you combine the archers and footmen 1:4

I have quite a few units, all marginally different, some weighted more to bows others more to bills, some with less MAA and some with more



Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: wrgmr1 on October 19, 2013, 10:18:31 PM
Arlequin:
Thanks for your opinion.  :)

My take on Skirmishers in Armati is that they are the peasants armed with simple weapons or crossbow skirmishers to harass the enemy and put a few hits on them.

Ok, I'm going to throw another wrench into all of this:

What are the differences from the WOR period to Renaissance. In particular early period.
This query is due to the Burgundian army I am currently painting. We are trying to decide the best way to handle Longbow within this army.
During the WOR, Armati 2 allows for Longbow to stand in front of Bill then melt into them once melee is imminent.
They add their fighting power to the melee Bill as well.
However the Burgundians did not do this, or did they?
I know Charles tried to mix bow with hand weapons on occasion but was it successful? Would the above rule be to liberal for this period?
The other discussion we had was to just make Longbow a Skirmish type unit.

Again, thoughts are appreciated gentlemen.
Cheers,
Thomas

Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Arlequín on October 20, 2013, 12:11:49 PM
Just picked up on this thread and have to say that it is totally bloody brilliant...
*Snip*
...I have quite a few units, all marginally different, some weighted more to bows others more to bills, some with less MAA and some with more.

Thanks on behalf of anyone who's contributed to it. To be honest, I thought you would have been here earlier. I hope you have a note?

;)

For me, 'skirmish' forces have a much easier time of representing 'real' formations. You can build the forces of one 'Lord', drawn from one 'Manor' and within reasonable parameters give a fair approximation of such a force. If you want to crib from the various Tudor musters that survive, you can virtually reproduce the real thing.

https://sites.google.com/site/winterbournesteepletonopc/tudor-muster-rolls

That's one example and despite being from 1542, would probably not differ overly from one from 1475... almost certainly the family names would be identical in the main too. Despite the 'decline of archery' that is supposed, there are still a lot of archers.

http://www.wing-ops.org.uk/muster1522.html

This one takes a bit more working out, but is also closer to our period. Add together value of land and goods and you'll see where they were supposed to fit into the schematic in my other post. Seemingly there was some shuffling of commitments, as some people are supplying multiples of a weapon type, instead of 'rising a class' in the hierarchy... so there was some flexibility in play too... presumably at the Commissioner's discretion.

Obviously women landholders, like the 'Prioress', would have to find hire someone to fulfil her commitment, in her case a Spear and an Archer. They might hire a professional, or in the case of the archer, perhaps find a volunteer amongst their 'unfree' tenants.

The main point though is that one village/hundred/county will not be the same as the next and there was no even distribution of types, other than as a general overall 'trend'. By varying your forces, you are, in my opinion at least, doing it right.

:)

Arlequin:
Thanks for your opinion.  :)

My take on Skirmishers in Armati is that they are the peasants armed with simple weapons or crossbow skirmishers to harass the enemy and put a few hits on them.

You're welcome... though what my opinion is worth is suspect.  ;)

I'm sure there were guys who could skirmish with the best of them, but they were also the same guys who stood shoulder to shoulder with their fellows. Restricting them to be nothing but skirmishers is perhaps doing them a disservice historically speaking. That being said, it's very hard to build in that kind of flexibility into a set of rules... so no easy answer to that really.

Ok, I'm going to throw another wrench into all of this:

What are the differences from the WOR period to Renaissance. In particular early period.
This query is due to the Burgundian army I am currently painting. We are trying to decide the best way to handle Longbow within this army.
During the WOR, Armati 2 allows for Longbow to stand in front of Bill then melt into them once melee is imminent.
They add their fighting power to the melee Bill as well.
However the Burgundians did not do this, or did they?
I know Charles tried to mix bow with hand weapons on occasion but was it successful? Would the above rule be to liberal for this period?
The other discussion we had was to just make Longbow a Skirmish type unit.

Burgundians aren't my speciality by any stretch, although I'm currently digging into the period after Charles's death (and I thought WotR was hard going!). The main point is that effectively the Ordonnance Companies were a standing army (not quite literally, but close enough), they drilled, they tried out innovative ideas... quite advanced stuff for the day. We have no proof that these ideas were actually used in battle, or whether they were shelved after they didn't work out in practice.

The bow/pike experiment appears to have involved the archers forming up within a combined unit, with several ranks of pikes to the front. They would kneel, allowing the archers to shoot over them. No counter-marching or exchanging of ranks required. How many companies tried this out, we don't know and even if universal within the Ordonnance Companies (very doubtful as the border garrisons were almost constantly involved in raiding and counter-raiding), it wouldn't apply to the contingents raised from the Flemish cities for the duration of the campaign, as well as the English and Italians hired, who almost certainly contained 'native' troop types and compositions - in other words they weren't organised like the 'Burgundian Companies'. 

Contemporary illustrations that have survived (believed to be c.1475), show a single row of archers in front of a single row of voulgiers (as opposed to the 'mounted' pic, which has the archers to the rear). As the archers in the 'Infantry' picture are wearing riding boots, I'm almost certain that these illustrations represent the mounted archer and 'coutilier' of the companies, especially as the third illustration shows a single row of men at arms without other troops.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6BcFYc4bJeo/UhEQ9ugsUHI/AAAAAAAAOxg/rwQ-ZVyPcEM/w1044-h393-no/img1852np.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-59fMhCBGTmg/UhEQ6VPnklI/AAAAAAAAOxY/aL6bFYRMkFo/w1044-h392-no/img1851c.jpg)

What is odd is that the 'Infantry' picture shows a single rank of archers, instead of a double rank, like the 'mounted' picture does... besides the fact that both infantry and mounted troops (and men at arms) are depicted behind a row of stakes of course. How much 'artistic licence' has been used therefore is hard to determine, but they are the best 'evidence' we have. As the book they came from belonged to one of Charles's senior commanders and Charles himself would almost certainly have had a copy (he was an avid book collector), I suspect they would not be too far from the 'truth'.

There are a few 'Burgundian' fans on LAF, who may have overlooked this thread, themed as it is for the WotR. I suggest a separate topic including 'Burgundians' in the title, which is sure to draw a much more knowledgeable response than mine... which has been largely composed of information that I've discarded from what I've needed, rather than the actual focus of my research.

:)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Silent Invader on October 20, 2013, 12:19:58 PM
 :D

No note I am afraid.... It was the heading and my resulting presumption that misguided me ..... Being short of time at the time I wrongly presumed it to be a rule set specific discussion. Playing catch up I have found otherwise..... That'll serve me!

 :D
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Captain Blood on October 28, 2013, 09:53:48 AM
H M Stanley - how would you feel about modifying the title of this thread to something like 'Force composition in the Wars of the Roses'?
This very same discussion comes up every few months. This thread is the fullest and most detailed exploration of the topic so far.
So rather than all having to repeat the various arguments and theories and 'known unknowns' again in another couple of months time (when this learned discussion -  which is mainly thanks to Arlequin's expert command of the sources - has sunk without trace down to the lower reaches of the board), we could have it pegged forever to the top of the board, so we don't have to keep going over the same ground again and again. We can simply add to this definitive discussion :)


Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: Elk101 on October 28, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Good idea Captain, I'll second that motion  :)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: H.M.Stanley on October 28, 2013, 11:08:45 AM
Consider it done gentlemen
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on October 28, 2013, 11:18:26 AM
Late to the party as usual, but yes... good call.  :)
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Silent Invader on October 28, 2013, 11:51:11 AM
Yay ..... I also vote for sticky status
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Hu Rhu on October 28, 2013, 12:02:34 PM
Thirded (or fourthed ???) Whatever - I concur :D
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Captain Blood on October 28, 2013, 03:23:02 PM
Thanks HM and fellows.
It is a shame for such assembled erudition and pointless speculation to sink without trace from the sight of future LAF generations...
:)
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on February 04, 2014, 10:16:08 AM
Earlier in the thread someone kindly mentioned my blog and a couple of articles I did a while back. I have since moved these to a new home on my 'Medieval Flanders' blog with their own links etc.

Just in case anyone was looking for them their new homes are;

War and Society (http://vlaendren.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.html)
Local Conflicts (http://vlaendren.blogspot.co.uk/p/as-part-of-discussions-regarding-using.html)
Household Men and Fee'd Men (http://vlaendren.blogspot.co.uk/p/spears-in-various-accounts-of-wars-of.html)
Commissions of  Array (http://vlaendren.blogspot.co.uk/p/medieval-arrays-and-musters-were.html)
Title: Re: WotR using HC
Post by: janner on December 09, 2014, 06:29:59 PM

During the WOR, Armati 2 allows for Longbow to stand in front of Bill then melt into them once melee is imminent.


It's perhaps worth mentioning here that Matthew Bennett is said to be an Armati fan, but I'm not sure if he influenced the development of this rule ;)
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on December 31, 2014, 08:19:24 PM
Okay, due to this subject arising in the last couple of days, and my being made aware of this thread, I will add my pov on the subject.

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/share/english_wotr.pdf (http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/share/english_wotr.pdf)

For comparison, a core English army in "the French wars" (HYW) would look like this:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/share/english_hyw.pdf (http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/share/english_hyw.pdf)

Although this army list derives from my rules, mostly it should be self-explanatory as to proportion, and possibly even intent in a general sense. The terms are each rule specific (that is to say, they refer to full descriptions and how they function in the game, e.g. "open and close order" is a reference to the rule governing the tactic by the same name, wherein the way the tactic works, and why, is described), but probably evoke a response that will communicate ideas that are understood more than misunderstood. Anyway, if anyone wants to ask for elucidation, feel free, I'll be watching....
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: coopman827 on January 01, 2015, 09:10:04 PM
How common were artillery, hand gunners, crossbows and pike-armed infantry in the WOTR armies?  I am relatively new to this period and could use some guidance regarding these.  Thanks for any replies.
Clay
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on January 01, 2015, 10:40:18 PM
WotR is not my "focus" period either. But I read what others say, and I've read a few books on it. Artillery was used in English armies as early as Crecy. It became more common as the WotR wore on, but I don't know how many pieces might be on a battlefield. Hand gunners were mercenaries, and iirc, only fielded by one nobleman on the Lancastrian side. Crossbows were garrison only (no evidence of use in the field), but you'd probably find them among the camp servants and so forth, since crossbows were very common throughout the 15th century and beyond. Pike-armed infantry, mercenaries again. English armies did not pick up the pike until well into the 16th century. Now, we wait for the erudites on the subject to correct me with added details.... :)
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Elk101 on January 02, 2015, 09:45:26 AM
As well as mention of Warwick's Burgundian hangunners at Second St. Albans (while still a Yorkist),  isn't there also mention of Edward having hangunners at Barnet?

Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: coopman827 on January 02, 2015, 05:09:35 PM
     Yes, some hand gunners were in Edward's force at Barnet, according to Gore and Ball's "Wars of the Roses Scenarios", which I just received 2 days ago. 
     This scenario book also shows that there were a fair no. of Welsh, Irish and Borderers troops present at some of the battles.  Can anyone recommend some 28mm figures that would be suitable for representing these troops?  I'm beginning to think that I should probably get a copy of Ian Heath's "Armies of the Middle Ages, Vol. 1".         
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on January 02, 2015, 07:07:02 PM
Doesn't that volume only go up to c. the HYW? WotR is very late medieval.

Yes, I think that the gunners at St Albans are the ones I was remembering.

Borderers could be mounted like coustilliers and with a light crossbow. They are SO cool looking. I have a single ten figure unit of mounted crossbow, but they don't look as cool as Borderers. Maybe it's mostly the posture of the miniatures, riding casually forward, instead of shooting back "Parthian style", like the illo in that old book on the battle of Flodden (not an Osprey, and I wish that I had a copy now). Mine are 28mm, Essex I think, not sure....
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: coopman827 on January 02, 2015, 09:21:46 PM
Vol. 1 of the "Armies of the Middle Ages" covers the HYW and the WOTR.   
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on January 03, 2015, 01:52:11 AM
I would caution against relying on a book that's over thirty years old, history isn't what it used to be and things have moved on a bit since then. You may as well read Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages.
 ;)

Finds at Bosworth indicate that not only was there a fair bit of artillery on the field, but also a fair few handgunners (or possibly early arquebuses even). The Pastons hired a couple to defend Caister against the Duke of Norfolk in the 1460s, so there were individual gunners knocking around besides 'companies'. I'd be willing to bet a shilling that Burgundian/Flemish handgunners were a routine portion of Yorkist armies from 1471 onwards, possibly even from 1461 given that Philip the Good did not want a pro-French Lancastrian faction running England.

Crossbows were surprisingly common and statutes allow 'foresters' et al, to attend muster with them instead of bows (being caught in the green wood with a bow would cost you your hand or a few lashes if you were lucky). There were enough of them (and handguns) being used instead of bows, for Henry VIII to prohibit them amongst the 'lower orders' as alternate options for bows in 1511, while at the same time issuing another statute reinforcing the existing one for bows, with the usual bans for football and stuff like that (as had Edward IV during his reign).

Margaret of Anjou, Warwick when he was a Lancastrian and Henry Tudor, were all in receipt of French money and given leave to recruit in France (as opposed to the general 'myth' that the French actually sent troops), Henry Tudor even managed to bag some recently redundant, Swiss-trained men of the bandes françaises and one of their captains (Philibert de Chandee) in 1485, along with his pick of lesser criminals from the gaols of Brittany and Normandy. Likewise Pierre de Breze, while out of favour (and therefore out of work) with the King of France, kept himself busy by taking up employment with the Lancastrians in the North after Towton, at the head of 2,000 mercenaries recruited in France.

The same deal applied to Edward and Richard in 'Burgundy' (i.e. Flanders), as opposed to actual 'Burgundian Troops' being supplied. This is how Juan Salazar (a Spaniard) ends up fighting at Bosworth, I doubt he was the only 'exotic' soldier there... then there is Martin Schwarz and his Swiss and Germans (although to the English they were all German).

What all these guys were armed with is open to debate. Schwarz's guys were previously in the service of Maximilian and almost certainly were pikes with a smattering of gunners and crossbows, likewise the former bandes française guys. Breton 'javelinmen' seems a no-brainer, until it's pointed out that a 'javelin' in the 15th Century was any spear shorter than a lance (also elsewhere called a 'lancegay' or 'assegai' sometimes) and English speakers referred to a lance as a spear. What we would call a javelin was called a 'dart'.  

You could hazard a guess and say that most mercenaries were a mix of crossbows, halberds/voulges, with the proportions dictated by where they originated from and probably be not too far off the mark. North of the River Seine and in the Low Countries the crossbow was a middle-class pastime, with the bow, glaive/voulge and 'piques' (long spear in France, real pikes in Flanders) as the lower class traditional weapons. South of the Seine it's pretty much crossbows all round for the masses, especially in Gascony for some reason. Normandy of course had a tradition of archery from their time as part of England.

What strikes me with all this is the value placed on supposedly inferior troop types. We (i.e. the English) have this idea that English archers were 'the' late medieval superweapon, yet they felt the need to recruit foreign mercenaries to supplement their indigenous forces. De Chandee, leading what were supposedly the dregs and scum of Brittany and Normandy, got an Earldom for his role at Bosworth, Schwarz and De Breze were both experienced leaders, with reputations as fighters, De Breze occasionally even had the King's ear... strange huh?
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Captain Blood on January 06, 2015, 05:09:58 PM
Gents, we have strayed a fair way from the original sticky topic and into discussions of tactics, armour class and all sorts of other things not strictly concerned with the ratio of bills:bows:other things in a WOTR force, which was the oft-debated topic of the original sticky - and a subject which most people interested in gaming the WOTR probably want to know about. To a certain level.

I've therefore demerged the latter part of your discussion after this point into a separate topic where you can continue debating the finer points to your hearts' content.

Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: janner on March 13, 2015, 07:06:07 AM
To follow on from the discussion on Stoke Field,

Sure, I understand that the Pale would have resembled an English Shire, but what's your take on the timing for the bill as dominant long arm for English foot?

Based on Thomas Ruthall's letter after Flodden, it's clearly well established by 1513 - amongst troops from Northern England at least, but probably across England given Ruthrall's military knowledge. So I'd argue that we have a relatively safe book end there, but how far would you shift it to the left?
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 13, 2015, 08:08:59 AM
Well that's the million dollar question for the era.  lol

To be honest I'm uncertain. 'Billmen' - by which I also include guisarmes, spears, pointy sticks and anything else, were available in quantity from the word go... the bulk of the population earned under £2, so according to the Assize of Arms and Statute of Winchester most people would fall into this category. Availability of course does not imply that they were called on.

The earliest mention I have found in a professional force is for Henry VII's French expedition of 1492, where out of 1108 foot, 124 are listed as billmen or halberdiers (in two retinues), the rest are archers. 40 of those come from a single retinue (Sir Walter Herbert) where they form exactly half of the foot. 20 halberdiers form virtually a third (20) of Viscount Welle's footmen. The only other significant number of them are in Sir Reynold Brey's where he has 24, as compared to 231 archers. 13 retinues out of the 26 have no billmen at all, the rest between 4 and 13, 4-6 being the most common.

The retinues are very different in size and composition, but other than the ones I mentioned it is the smaller ones which contain bills, like the Earl of Surrey's which has 13 bills to 66 archers.

Sir Gilbert Talbot's commission for the same expedition is given as being as '80 men' with as many men at arms and demi-lances as possible, the rest to be archers or bills. Then the rates of pay for his men are also given, which are different to another source in that Men at Arms were given there as being paid 18d (presumably to pay for the custrell and page) and archers whether foot or mounted were getting 6d.

This was an army of volunteers and essentially it was announced that an army was being raised and that anyone interested in applying should should go and sign up. While this gave them the pick of who they took on, I can only imagine that they could also only choose from who turned up too.  

Herbert's recruitment area was around Brecon, an area both poor and lacking in archers in any case (an earlier Herbert was the one who also lacked archers at the Battle of Edgecote in 1469 - Central and Northern Wales did not have a tradition of massed archery, or so I'm led to believe).

What is also very interesting (to me at least) is that it is the first listing of men at arms as being accompanied by a 'custrell' and page - and every one of them are, that I've come across and 'demi-lances' are also mentioned... alongside mounted archers and in some cases exceeding them in numbers.

I've put the table in Word on dropbox here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pm9768o47kpp2yj/1492%20Expedition.docx?dl=0). Sadly I didn't note the source at the time and I need to find it again... it poses more questions than it answers.

1) I presume that both bills and demi-lances did not suddenly appear in 1492, so why do we not find them before?

2) Is the split into men at arms, demi-lances and mounted archers for the mounted element indicative of an acceptance of the reality, i.e. that all 'men at arms or mtd archers' were not equal in terms of armour and equipment and there was a middle ground which previously fell arbitrarily into either camp in earlier documents?

Older retinues are just divided on paper between men at arms, mtd archers and archers (sometimes just men at arms and archers), but now we have men at arms, with an exactly equal number of 'custrells', then demi-lances and mounted archers (in no fixed ratio), then archers and billmen (with archers still the majority foot)... seven years after Bosworth and five after Stoke Field.

I haven't looked further forward than this, so I'll take it on advisement what the ratios were for later forces...
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: janner on March 13, 2015, 12:53:33 PM
Yes, that all fits with what I have seen, i.e. bills appearing occasionally as weapons earlier, but billmen as an identifiable group not seen until virtually the dawn of the 16th Century. Hence I can't help but do a double take when the term is used to describe troops earlier in the Middle Ages.

In my book, prior to that we have foot, who unless described otherwise (e.g. archers), could be expected to be armed with some form of longarm (spear, guisarme etc) sometimes backed-up by a hand weapon, such as an sword or axe. If their harness was of sufficient quality (or their employer could provide it), they could find employ as a man-at-arms. For certain expeditions, of course, the commander might be able to be choosy and limit his foot to archers and men-at-arms  :)

On Edgecoat, as you are no doubt aware, North Wales was known for its spearmen. Interesting, custrell was also used to describe a type of sword in an account for the Calendar of Patent Rolls - 10 August 1451 (based on the double edged French coustille probably):

Quote
Pardon to Thomas Osbatteley of Norhampton, co. Northampton, 'taillour,' of the king's suit for all felonies, trespasses and offences and any consequent outlawries by reason of the presentment on Monday after St. John before the Latin Gate, 29 Henry VI, at Norhampton, before Thomas Braunfeld, Henry Baldeswell, Simon Philipp the elder and William Par, coroners in the town, on view of the body of William Hedge of Norhampton, 'wever', that on Sunday before the said Monday, about the eighth hour after twelve William Hedge and Thomas Osbatteley sat within the dwelling of John Broun of Norhampton, ' baker', in the company of others, drinking and singing by turns, and there came William Cook of Norhampton, 'wever', and made assault on Thomas touching his singing, whereupon abusive words passing between them, the said William Cook and Thomas Osbatteley, alias Botteley, assaulted each the other, and William with a ' pykfork ' worth 2d. struck Thomas on the head, whereupon Thomas drew a sword called a 'custrell' worth I2d. and would have struck William Cook, but William Hedge intervened and was struck by William Cook with the ' pykfork ' under the right ear and by Thomas with the 'custrell' in the belly (in ventrem inter viscera) on the left side under the navel, making a wound 9 inches deep, and William Hedge lay sick till the fourth hour at dawn of Monday and then expired.
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 13, 2015, 02:42:19 PM
Nicely dug out there... It makes a change from the usual run of disputed inheritances causing affrays.  lol

Sure, the custrills, costrills, whatever, were the English version of French and Burgundian coutillier or coustilier, named after the weapon and in later centuries would lend its name, but not its form to the cutlass. The demi-lances almost certainly were the better of the archers who we find occasionally serving as men at arms earlier and the poorer-equipped of the men at arms, regraded and paid somewhat less than a 'proper man at arms' in full harness... for my money anyway.

Billmen I suspect made earlier appearances. I'm happy you won't find them in the Hundred Years War, unless you consider the 'men at arms on foot' found in garrisons to count, although for 8d a day I'd expect them to have everything a man at arms was supposed to have (whatever that was) but the horse.

In the Wars of the Roses however, there are frequent summonses for 'tall men' and as 'as many as you can goodly make' and similar phrases, which imply to me that other than when 'defensibly arrayed' etc is requested, they weren't too fussy what you brought as long as you brought something. So in that context I imagine billmen got their premature moment in the sun.

I'm a believer in gradual change and continuity and I suspect that billmen turned up in such ad-hoc bodies of men first, but by the end of the WotR they were probably a minute part of the more professional bodies of formal retinues too (as seems to be the case in 1492). Alternatively they may, as you say, be quite well-accoutred enough to supplement the men at arms when they were foot, or maybe they formed a sort of 'colour-guard' of sorts for the archer's commanders and standards. Batches of bows ordered at various times (Coventry's being one) usually include a small number of bills, presumably either for 'watch and ward' in camp, or for such a duty in battle.

I certainly don't expect to see whole units of bills from those numbers I supplied though, and even in Herbert's 50/50 retinue, I imagine it was a case of a 'bowe and a byll at his back' and entirely the result of there being a lack of archers in such areas as he and his forebears recruited from, or in the case of the other contingents, a lack of archer volunteers.

Edward IV's push to ban football etc in favour of archery in 1477 might indicate an increasing shortage of archers, but I suspect any lack was due more to increased demand for them overall than a decline in numbers; France and Burgundy were both increasing the ratio of common soldiers to men at arms in the same period and Edward's own army of 1475 fielded the largest numbers of archers ever in an English army. If there truly was a drop in archer numbers I doubt he would allow Charles the Bold a free hand in recruiting from within his army. So we've moved from more than enough archers for the crown's needs, to demand outstripping supply, rather than less people actually available.  

Either way, with the exception of a few able and well-equipped individuals, who for whatever reason did not learn to shoot a longbow or just couldn't, I believe the bills were a stand-in for archers rather than a conscious desire to have 'heavy infantry', which judging from Tudor musters, only around 10% would cut it in that role, the rest only having the bill itself and maybe a sallet.  
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on March 13, 2015, 04:28:22 PM
Were "billmen", i.e. infantry without bows, mustered with the MAA or the archers, or both? Judging by the small ratio of infantry to archers, it seems likely to me that anyone with a bill could go either way. They (certainly) were not arrayed by themselves into discrete companies/units. I could see a case for a single company/unit of infantry stationed as a specific guard or reserve, which would mean that they were arrayed separately. But there isn't any tradition for such use.

In my army list I go for longbowmen OR billmen. The option is up to the player. But unarmored longbowmen are a REQUIRED UNIT, which means that before fielding anything else you must have a unit of unarmored longbowmen. After that, the proportion of billmen to longbowmen is up to you. I know that this is very "free style" compared to the apparent norm of the period. But the army list can be used to field anywhere from a thousand men up to Towton. So the flexibility is actually the result of simplicity, perhaps over-simplicity. It is, what it is....
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: janner on March 13, 2015, 06:01:12 PM
Less well protected chaps with long arms may well have been a cheap and cheerful way to improve the defensive capabilities of archers.

Given human nature, after a slow start, I wonder if it just became the new 'must have' item of shiny equipment, the iBill if you will  lol
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 13, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
But there isn't any tradition for such use.

Traditions only hold until someone creates a new tradition.  ;)

Given that the Men at Arms and the Demi-lances were pretty much at the head of a new tradition of English cavalry, the obvious answer to me is that the bills were with the bows, but you could argue that they were the new dismounted men at arms; the proportions of bows to bills are not far off 1475's men at arms to bows after all.

Although the overwhelming majority of bills available were the lowest members of society and equipped as you'd expect, clearly with only 100+ in the force they need not have looked further than the guys who did possess protection and experience.

It's like a sports team, millions of people play a sport, but you wouldn't take a cross section of them to make up a team, you select only the best... unless you're an England manager.
;) 

I wonder if it just became the new 'must have' item of shiny equipment, the iBill if you will  lol

lol  Well let's face it, after killing Charles the Bold and Richard III pole-arms couldn't have better press.

"Arrows bouncing off that pesky Gothic plate? You need iBill. iBill - guaranteed to render your foes' facial features unrecognisable".
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 15, 2015, 06:18:46 PM
I've been reading up on the Calais Garrison and while I didn't find what I was looking for, I did find remarks about weapon stocks around 1476-81.

They had 1076 longbows, 120 steel crossbows, 40 wooden ones, 15 'hake guns' (old hook guns), 25 iron handguns and 243 brass ones. In terms of hand weapons they had 67 spears (by which I take to mean lances perhaps), 144 'Moorish pikes' (which I presume are the continental type  18-24 foot ones), 360 pike shafts, 941 spear heads, 84 'white bills' (steel?), 119 black bills (iron?), 60 'gylt axes' (decorated pole-axes for ceremonial use?) and 172 'ungylt axes' (normal pole-axes?).

As the garrison was usually reinforced by 'crews' from England when trouble was on the horizon, I expect the stocks were to replace deficient items they bought with them. Calais had around 40 crossbowmen of its own, so I expect they didn't need three spare weapons each. The total garrison for Calais and the castles of Hammes, Rysbank and Guines was about 700 men, some 2/3-3/4 of whom were archers at any given time.

-Source: Grummitt, D. (2008) The Calais Garrison: War and Military Service in England, 1436-1558. Boydell & Brewer.

I have no comment, but other than the longbow stocks, I am surprised at the weapon mix to say the least.  :?   
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: janner on March 15, 2015, 08:22:39 PM
I vaguely recall Moorish or Morris pikes being used to describe those carried by Scots Schiltrons. I'll see what I can dig up.
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: le bon roi rene on March 15, 2015, 11:26:31 PM
With the ratio of MAAs _and_ bill armed infantry to archers so small in WotR retinues it is almost inconceivable to me that all possible missile fire wasn't focused on the hth infantry. Its seems like the sheer volume of missile fire would have vaporized the hand to hand troops, yet we know that didn't happen. What is the missing piece of the puzzle? My guess is that the ratio is not quite as high as those for continental expeditions and the earlier HYW.

Cheers,
Fred
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on March 16, 2015, 03:40:26 AM
I think that you are right: the ratio of hand-to-hand troops was much closer to a parity with the archers. And I think that the archers shot at each other rather than shooting at the MAA and other non archer troops. This would be the normal situation, of course, not exclusively the case. Finally, I think that the archers, almost all, had good melee capability themselves and had swords, bills and the plethora of other melee weapons with which to engage in the hand-to-hand....
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 16, 2015, 10:20:09 AM
I'm sorry but there is no primary source evidence to support any sort of parity between 'hand to hand' and 'missile troops', even in the quite detailed indentures of the 1492 retinues. Archers still outnumber all other types by 3:1, bearing in mind that most of the 'others' are now 'cavalry', the archers overall outnumber the bills 9:1.

All surviving indentures 1415-1492 show a shift over the century to more archers and fewer knights and esquires, to the point that the men at arms go to around 10% of the totals and the actual well-armoured 'knights' to around 25% of those, the rest being partially-armoured demi-lances and custrells.

Okay I'll accept these are all 'picked forces' for foreign wars and that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence and all that. I often think that the army at Flodden was perhaps far more representative of what a Wars of the Roses army of indentured companies and levies might have looked like. Anyone have primary source details of the composition of that army? It's way beyond my knowledge, interest or time to research.
:)

Its seems like the sheer volume of missile fire would have vaporized the hand to hand troops, yet we know that didn't happen. What is the missing piece of the puzzle? My guess is that the ratio is not quite as high as those for continental expeditions and the earlier HYW.

You might be right, but as I mention above, the evidence for masses of 'hand to hand troops' just isn't there. You can go round in circles arguing what might have been the case (and I have done), but without any actual proof you have to go with what you have. 

My guess is that like modern day artillery archers engaged in 'counter-battery fire' against the enemy to their front - who were mostly opposing archers. Where one side did have an advantage in numbers of archers or conditions (Towton snow storm, or Herbert's Welshmen at Edgecote), they were forced to attack immediately. As effective archery engagement range was around 300 yards, we are only talking just under four minutes to cover the distance at normal gentle walking speed, you can guarantee they were trying to go much faster than that.

In more even-handed battles I imagine they shot until their supply was exhausted... however long that took.

I vaguely recall Moorish or Morris pikes being used to describe those carried by Scots Schiltrons. I'll see what I can dig up.

I believe that 'Moorish/Morris pike' came from the belief back then that it was the Moors who introduced the pike to Europe... likewise 'Morris dancers' are representing 'Moors' too, which explains the 'black face' traditions. I'm surprised that hasn't been hammered by RR legislation to be honest.   
 ;)
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on March 16, 2015, 04:17:55 PM
IF, if, the MAA and other hand-to-hand troops were as outnumbered as the muster roles say, in WotR battles, I would mix them up with archers all across the frontage of the army. Discrete units (battles) would just invite focus of the enemy's masses of archers, which would result in their annihilation (as pointed out again by Fred). But if hand-to-hand troops were mingled across the frontage, then the received shot of the enemy would land at random upon the armored troops, and their armor would make them more resistant to the chance missiles that hit them. Their presence would "stiffen" the archers, both because of their armor and their (asserted) higher morale and melee capability/training. I believe that this pov loops back to the other original question: how were WotR armies arrayed? Were archers in fact in discrete formations as in the HYW?...
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Captain Blood on March 16, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
Haven't we had this argument before a few months ago?
Perhaps keep to what little evidence there is rather than 'I think this' or 'I believe that'.

The idea of this thread was to simply corral in one place the basic evidence and explanation for the probable / possible ratio of MAA:bills:bows in WOTR era armies: a question which was repeatedly asked by LAF members - hence the sticky.

It's not meant as a platform for extended academic debate on the subject.
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: le bon roi rene on March 17, 2015, 01:20:55 AM
Fair cop, however...

We can all agree on this much: Speaking exclusively about WotR engagements, missile fire on its own almost never won the day. So, when we speak in terms of 3, 4,5:1 ratios in favor of archers, I have to ask: why not?

Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 17, 2015, 04:45:36 AM
For the same reasons that archers in the HYW felt the need to dig pits, deploy behind ditches and hedges, or within and behind a field of sharpened stakes... alone the longbow was never enough. I'm not aware of a single battle involving the English that was not settled one way or another by a melee.

As for the WotR you have a range of battles fought largely with "household men and fee'd men", or those supplemented by numbers of levies, which by connotation we presume were low quality. After they end we see reasonable numbers of cavalry evident in English armies, probably the last thing you would expect to see after a war involving two sides predominantly composed of archers, yet there they were.

I think it was Commines who described the English archers in 1475 as not being of the same quality as they once were and how disorderly they appeared on the march - and he was there to see them. 'New men of war' crops up a fair bit in accounts, so maybe inexperience was an issue.

The summonses to provide troops that have survived often mention 'defensively arrayed', so we are talking men with a degree of protection being involved. The instances of 'naked men' are uncommon enough to warrant mention in accounts, so the typical soldier was probably reasonably protected.

While assessments of who had what (Bridport roll, Ewelme's and later ones from 1512 and 1522) show a lot of people with very little, there is nothing to say these were ever called up. Despite being called 'muster rolls' they were not, they were assessments, a very different thing.

The Duke of Norfolk's accounts list his non-household men of 1485 by village, but there are only a small number of men from each one listed, so perhaps he chose the best of a bad bunch. He should have had no difficulty raising the 1,000 men he promised, yet only raised 800 or so in the end; I'm guessing he discarded some who did not meet whatever standard he felt was acceptable.

In all there is nothing to suggest that troops in the WotR were largely composed of hordes of ill-protected men dragged from field and plough, nor that these men were 'expert archers' of the kind tried and tested before being sent to France, as was supposedly the case in the 'glory days'.

So was the longbow somewhat over-rated in terms of its effectiveness, or was the typical soldier protected sufficiently to somewhat neutralise its effects, or both?
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: MerlintheMad on March 17, 2015, 02:41:09 PM
So, lots of bows still. But, lower quality among their total numbers. How to separate out the good and best quality bow from the lower quality bow? We can probably assume that the household yeomen were all good quality. That the "hand-picked" retinues were also good quality. But that the "levy" were assorted, mostly poorer quality archers. Some/many probably were told to ditch their bows and take to the "bill". So even though on a "muster" roll they appear as "archers", in reality they resorted to their secondary, or melee weapons as their main arms when arrayed for battle. This is all speculation.

In the army list I use, the original premise of it's designer included the notion that the poorer archers are there if you insist on using them. But the good and best quality bows are limited to 25% and 10% respectively, of the total in the army. You can shoot with the poorer quality archers but they will not reach as far or hit as hard. The good quality archers are the ones that made up the "warbow" of the HYW. They are still there, but they are "hidden" amongst the mass of archers mustered (and, of course, are employed by the nobility as household and retinue troops). The best of the best, c. 10%, or "one archer in ten" (I'm still without the original source that said that, and I still think it was Roger Ascham, but can't find it in "Toxophilus") shot the bow that exceeded a hundred pounds draw weight. These, when found amongst the population, would be snapped up by the noble households, and (imho) comprised the royal archers of the guard, and aboard the king's ships; nobody of lesser skill would be able to qualify for such employment.

So on the battlefield, the wargames table, you could array the masses of lesser bow as "billmen" or "spears", whathaveyou. Yes, they can shoot too (if "you" insist), but their skill will be less in addition to their bows being lighter draw weight than the "warbows" of c. 70-80 lbs, and the cream of the crop shooting c. 100 lbs. I don't know how "you" would model that. But in our rules it is all taken care of by "Bow 2", "Bow 3" and "Bow 4"....
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Arlequín on March 17, 2015, 08:05:53 PM
Sure, if you have a pool of archers of finite limits, then it stands to reason that the more that are recruited, the lower the average drops. There is of course a lower skill limit by which a man can no longer be considered an archer (especially if you're the guy paying his wage), there was a standard after all.

I can't say with any confidence that there weren't any 'billmen' either (whatever they were called), I'm just saying there's not much evidence. That being lacking, any consideration of numbers, proportions, or anything else is just pure guesswork and anyone's guess is literally as good as mine, if not more so.
Title: Re: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses
Post by: Captain Blood on March 17, 2015, 08:18:00 PM
I'm just saying there's not much evidence. That being lacking, any consideration of numbers, proportions, or anything else is just pure guesswork and anyone's guess is literally as good as mine, if not more so.

Which I think, Jim, is pretty much what you said very near the beginning  :)

And therefore seems as good a place as any to call a halt to this thread and preserve it, along with all its learning / guesswork for the benefit of posterity.