Looking for Rhys ap Thomas banners and badges

[Arlequín]

Wow you guys have been busy. 

Okay a Welsh Bill, aka a Welsh Hook looks something like this.



Some might have had longer spikes to the fore, but essentially it is just another regional variation on the common billhook, alongside; black bills, white bills, hedging bills and similar named items. Nothing fancy and designed to be made quickly in quantity with little effort.

The difference between custrells and demi-lancers is hard to pin down. Demi-lancer was a new term in 1492 and I'm not aware it was used earlier. Way back when, all of them were lumped into what we call 'men at arms', as the differences between degrees of armour was not as wide.

By the Late 15th Century, the men at arms, or 'Gens d'Armes', were in armour top to toe and it was very expensive. The custrell was also outfitted by the man at arms and was comparable to the coustilier, coutilier, or valet de guerre, on the continent. What we can be sure of is that he accompanied the man at arms into battle, foot or mounted, but he was an attendant.

The demi-lancers were the bargain basement of the old-style men at arms, not in full armour and paid at the same rate as the light horsemen, 'scourers' and 'prickers' in past times (9d). Gentry and well-off yeomen certainly, but not wealthy enough to go the full distance as regards kit and probably mount. Social status was perhaps the only difference between them and the custrells.

As Cubs points out, Wales was poor and in an age where you had what the law said you must, Jones the Labourer mostly made do with a bill or pointy stick, Jones the small holder could however run to a bow and arrows however and Jones the Farmer owned a horse. Society was a pyramid, so there were far more bills and pointy sticks than bows everywhere.

Not everyone wanted to be a soldier and go to France and rates of pay had been stagnant for a long time. Archers, both foot and mounted (and billmen) were paid 6d in 1493, the same as foot archers at Agincourt. Such a wage would only attract men who could only earn below it, which ruled out a lot of archers. The situation was different in England, which had many more poorer archers than Wales.

So Herbert then, beat the drum round Brecon and recruited the best of who came, half of the footmen being poor men with bills (or who Herbert gave bills to), seeking better wages and maybe some booty in France. Similar things occurred in parts of England that were traditionally poor, but they could afford to turn away billmen for the most part; there was a surfeit of poor men who could handle a bow.

One oddity were the twenty 'halberdiers' raised by the Viscount Welles, along with three times as many archers, but no bills. It is difficult to say whether they were just billmen with a fancy name, or that Welles had actually recruited some kind of honour guard in imitation of the King's Yeomen, or the French Royal Guard. I suspect the former. 

The final point I'd make is that it had become common by the second half of the century to have stores of weapons and armour available to equip men you raised, as seemingly so many men had nothing at all. There were archers who didn't own bows, even billmen who had no bill, but you wouldn't waste a bow on someone who could not shoot it.   

[Charlie_]

Wow you guys have been busy. 

Okay a Welsh Bill, aka a Welsh Hook looks something like this.

Some might have had longer spikes to the fore, but essentially it is just another regional variation on the common billhook, alongside; black bills, white bills, hedging bills and similar named items. Nothing fancy and designed to be made quickly in quantity with little effort.

I've actually  not seen that shape of polearm before.... Interesting.

(I think when it comes to polearms, we shouldn't get too bogged down in the details and what each one was called. I think surely all the 'common' polearms would be seen mixed up together, and the names given to each different sort are more or less interchangeable. I mean we all know what a halberd is, or at least the classic late 15th century halberd shape.... And we all know a bill featured some sort of hook. But what about a guisarne? A voulge? A fauchard? I just throw them all together, mix them up, and call them 'polearms'.
Sure, there would be national favourites. I don't doubt that the Swiss favoured the halberd, and the English apparently liked the more hook-based 'bills'.... But I think if you spoke to a 15th century soldier, he'd just use the term he was most familiar with to refer to them all.)

The demi-lancers were the bargain basement of the old-style men at arms, not in full armour and paid at the same rate as the light horsemen, 'scourers' and 'prickers' in past times (9d). Gentry and well-off yeomen certainly, but not wealthy enough to go the full distance as regards kit and probably mount. Social status was perhaps the only difference between them and the custrells.

That's interesting. Was 'demi-lancer' a term used universally across Europe in this era?

One oddity were the twenty 'halberdiers' raised by the Viscount Welles ... It is difficult to say whether they were just billmen with a fancy name ...

That sounds the most likely to me. Billmen, halberdiers, all the same I'd say...

[Arlequín]

Demi-lancer is a term more commonly found in the 16th Century, I was surprised to see it used so early, but I guess you have to start using new words at some point. The rather vague 'horsemen' is used in Norfolk's household accounts pre-1485 too.

Although much older terms, glaive or guisarme are sometimes used interchangeably with bill around this time, in the same way as spear and lance are, so sure there appears to be no real difference. In an offhand way I suspect both terms are used to describe all polearms, including spears. So twenty men with guisarmes or bills means assorted long weapons.

There were fundamental differences between such weapons though, if only in terms of price. It was an inventory from Calais that provided 'black bills' and 'white bills' iirc, the latter being considerably more expensive, so I expect they were steel and the others iron. Richard III was conscripting smiths to make 'Welsh Bills' before Bosworth. A couple of years on Lord Stanley is forbidding smiths in Congleton to make Forest Bills. As you say though, distinguishing between them all is a touch too much granularity I think.

I'm also curious what happened to the 1,200 pikes supplied to 'the English king' by Burgundy in 1483, we typically associate Henry VIII as being the guy who introduced them. What is seemingly becoming apparent, is that the armies of 1455 were somewhat different to those of 1485, which seem more in-line with those of Henry VIII than Henry V.

[Cubs]

I'm also curious what happened to the 1,200 pikes supplied to 'the English king' by Burgundy in 1483, we typically associate Henry VIII as being the guy who introduced them.

When I read this I heard Captain Mainwaring's voice saying, "Don't sell him, pikes!"

[Arlequín]

 

I imagine that was the thoughts of the Lancastrian Exile Court too. 

[Cubs]

Now, after doing some more poking, I have found that this first image with the longer, slender blades seems to be labelled as a Welsh Bill/Hook in a few different sites (including the Royal Armouries), whereas the second more practical looking fellow I can only find in that one place. So were they different weapons after all? Sure, they're all bladed pole arms, so no real difference as such, but are we looking at two distinctly different styles?

One thing I will say is that all the examples I have found seem a little later than WOTR, so perhaps that's an evolution of the beast into two different styles during the Tudor era. Or maybe these were two distinct shapes found within Wales that weren't used over the border? Either way, they should make for some fun conversions.

Here we go, a Welsh bill.

Okay a Welsh Bill, aka a Welsh Hook looks something like this.

Oh, and I've just started reading the book about Rhys ap Thomas, and it seems his grandfather was using the raven device back in his day (not necessarily legally) whilst ostensibly working for absentee English titled lords, so I'm happy enough to his grandson still using the same design on his men.

[Arlequín]

If I didn't know better I'd be tempted to put the top ones down to SCA whimsy. However there is so much debate about what weapon was called what, we are unlikely to tie names to types. I wouldn't be surprised if a Medieval bloke might happily use glaive, hook, guisarme (or 'giserne') or 'bylle', for the same thing, as the fancy took him. My only objection to them is that they seem very elaborate for a weapon to be picked up and used by Joe Average of the time. 

When Richard III ordered 'Welsh Bills' in 1485, ordering the pressing of smiths to ensure they would be ready in time, I'd put my money on the simpler and more robust one I offered. Medieval prices were all about the man-hours taken to produce something, so I do wonder how many would go into each respective type and for a client in a hurry, which one could be churned out the quickest.

The weapons were also being made in England, for issue to 'militia' (levies is a little inaccurate), so 'Welsh Bill' was a recognised type across the country as a whole and not a regional speciality.

I'm loathe to say the Royal Armouries are wrong, but it has been known all the same and originally the 'Tower of London' called the same weapons 'guisarmes'; as you'll find in older books (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guisarme#/media/File%3ARecordofeuropean03lakiuoft_0158.jpg).

There's some illustrations of regional billhook types here: http://www.timelesstools.co.uk/cat_pages.htm, which may be illuminating. For all that though, they are all pretty much variations on a theme, apart from the hedging bills, which are very 'glaive-like'.

[Cubs]

Ah, I'm going round in circles with this nonsense now. I think I'll do a bit of both because I like the idea of the fun of it and flick peanuts at anyone who argues.

[Arlequín]

A coincidence perhaps, but Pete of 'Pete's Flags' has just done Rhys ap Thomas. 

http://thegreatitalianwars.blogspot.com/2018/08/sir-rys-ap-thomas.html

[Cubs]

Wow, thanks for that, most convenient. Reading the book recommended as well, it seems Rhys ap Thomas was a dab hand with the light cavalry. Looks like plenty of demi-lances then.

[Arlequín]

Him, John Grey Lord Powis, George Stanley Lord Strange and Sir John Savage, were noted cavalry leaders from Wales and the Marches in the late 15th - Early 16th Century.

Demilancers were only 'light cavalry' in the sense that they weren't men at arms in full armour. Scots Border 'prickers', 'staves', 'hobblers' and possibly Welsh 'marchogs', were the closest thing to light cavalry of the time. 'Light cavalry' would have been an alien concept though; 'mounted raiders from the badlands' would probably be better understood as a concept back then.

A later illustrative comparison between demilances and men at arms would be Cromwell's Ironsides and Haselrig's Lobsters in the ECW. The Ironsides patrolled and foraged, but dragoons were the closest thing to light cavalry and not that unlike the earlier Border Horse all things considered.

[Cubs]

I think he had a mix of mounted infantry and cavalry (of various sorts), reading between the lines. There's certainly mention of his cavalry at Bosworth, standing near Henry Tudor (this would presumably be men-at-arms as opposed to light cavalry given their usage). Then in a letter written by his grandson, he petitions Henry VIII to have lands restored to the family, and mentions the 1,800 horsemen Rhys had brought to Bosworth. There's no way all those were cavalry, and it sounds about the same figure given as those Rhys had raised in Wales to accompany the French mercenaries Henry had brought.

[Arlequín]

It depends what you're terming 'cavalry' and 'mounted infantry'. A fair proportion of mounted archers were skilled horsemen, some switching from being archers to men at arms, and in some cases back again, over consecutive years. Some earlier men at arms were paid as 'foot men at arms', despite having horses, so presumably their mounts were only fit for transport. Many 'foot archers' were mounted too, but not paid as mounted archers, so the same was probably true of them.

If Rhys was being thanked for horsemen though, I'd wager they were fit for mounted action, regardless of the role they played when push came to shove. They were multi-purpose and defy our attempts to pigeonhole them according to our categories. Simply put, if a man was adequately horses and a reasonable rider, he was cavalry. When he got off it he was infantry, as were men on poor horses, or who could not ride well.

[Cubs]

I would define cavalry as someone who fights from horseback. I don't know if that's academically accurate or not to be honest. If they ride to the battlefield and get off, or even if they're mounted on the battlefield and then dismount when they've ridden to position, I'd class that as mounted infantry. Like you say, how they're used on the day defines the term.

But most figures I've seen for the total troops Rhys ap Thomas raised for Bosworth put it between 1,500 and 2,000. So if his grandson says 1,800 horsemen were provided, that slots in nicely to the total and I'd be surprised if at the very least half weren't infantry (presumably mounted), given the nature of the fighting we know happened on the day. After his knighthood, the sort of numbers he was raising for service with Henry VII seem to be about a dozen lances, 250-300 demi lances and the same infantry. Granted this is after his knighthood, so the troop composition isn't likely to be exactly the same pre-Bosworth, but I think I'll use that sort of proportion when planning the force.

[Arlequín]

Most of the men he raised for Bosworth were likely to be 'well-wishers' and fellow travellers on the Henry Tudor bandwagon. The later troops were almost certainly his own retainers, along with his and their household men and tenants. He could probably still raise 1,800 men for a domestic campaign, probably more as he was now a major player and had additional offices ; he probably also held a commission of array too.

In comparison the Stanleys are said to have raised 3,000 men for Bosworth, while the typical 'retinue' for a lord seems to have been more usually around the 500 mark. The extras came from the offices held by the Stanleys and that they held commissions of array from Richard III for Cheshire, Lancashire and iirc Flintshire. Rhys ap Thomas probably had similar power after Bosworth, however armies for foreign campaigns were smaller.

Other retinues for France in 1492 are of similar proportions by troop type, the total numbers reflecting the relative power individuals wielded. Twelve men at arms, who were usually backed by a 'custrel' too, and a couple of hundred demi-lances (lesser men at arms in other words), plus the infantry, puts him up with 'the gods', i.e. folk like Lord Strange and Reginald Brey. The numbers of demilances seems quite high though, so that might include mounted archers and archers 'mounted' with 2-300 being the total of 'horsemen'. He's actually pretty close to the 1,000 men it is estimated that the Earl of Oxford could raise from just his own retainers and he was the 'foremost man of the kingdom'.

My previous comments were intended to put over the idea that Late 15th Century soldiers defy our more enlightenment categories, they were what they needed to be, when they needed to be it. Go back to earlier examples and you have many of the men at arms of Agincourt charging mounted with Clarence at Baugé. Men at arms foraged and scouted too, usually in company with 'light horse' and mounted archers, hardly something 'heavy cavalry' do.

Don't get me wrong, you're on the right track for my money, but I would try to shed concepts like light and heavy cavalry. Contemporaries talked in terms of horsemen and footmen, even if many of those footmen rode in transit. 'Light horse' might typically have 3/4 plate, or other substantial, if relatively cheap protection, when compared to the 'head to toe' armour worn by men at arms of that time. There are many explanations of what demilance means, I prefer 'part lance', 'lance' (or 'spear') being a man at arms in 15th Century speak.