Another War of the Roses Question!

[Silent Invader]

Am massing my troops for this winter's project - mostly perry plastics and metals.

Question is: what about peasants and the such-like? Do many people feature these in their armies?

[Arlequín]

The 'peasant' is already included in the army, within the ranks of the archers and billmen of 'levied' troops. Having said that, 'billman' covers a multitude of weapons attached to a stick that can cause injury, besides the ubiquitous billhook itself. If I was depicting a levied bill unit, I'd drop in the odd spear or other weapon to make the unit look suitably irregular and hastily arrayed.

The anachronistic pitchfork armed peasant is more of a feature of earlier times, or of those states which relied on denying them weapons for fear of revolt (i.e. France), they would be pretty much a last resort in the face of a foreign invasion, or called up as labourers and pioneers etc.

The key thing to remember about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't a civil war as such. There was no great polarisation of the general population into opposing factions. For the majority of inhabitants life went on as normal and you would have to be very unlucky indeed to get caught up in them unwillingly. Even amongst the nobles and knights, there were many who chose not to take part. There was also no need for anything like the 'Clubmen' of the English Civil War either.

Where I might expect to see farmtool-armed peasants might be in a sudden attack by one noble on another's manor, which was quite a rare event, but did happen. Normally though they would be better armed with some warning.

    

[Sangennaru]

well, they could be anachronistic but... any rumors about plastic sets of peasants? it should be so great! *_*

[JollyBob]

For what its worth, i.e. two thirds of bugger all, I'd agree with Arlequin.

Soldiers would be professional or semi-professional, engaged by legal retainer and equiped to a reasonable to high standard by their captains, lords or whatever. No pitchfork and scythe weilding mobs huddling together in the middle of the line at this point.

That won't however stop me from getting a handful of rude artisans and mechanicals to add to the baggage train when the Perry's ox-cart is released, just for a bit of colour.  

[Sangennaru]

you totally get the point. mate! =)

[joroas]

Perrys have a whole swathe of new plastics to bring out, but peasants are not on the current list. 

[Captain Blood]

In my forces I've included a few scruffier-looking types in 'civvies' with just a livery badge stitched on... So not peasants as such, but definitely not liveried retainers or proper paid soldiery.

[janner]

Henry II Assize of arms (1181) is worth a look - although over 250 years earlier, it indicates the sort of equipment people were expected to muster with (no peasants with scythes required!):

(1) Whoever holds a knight's fee must have a hauberk and helmet and shield and lance, and all knights should have as many hauberks and helmets and shields and lances as they have knights' fees within their lordship.

(2) Whichever free laymen who have chattels or rent of 16 marks should have a hauberk and helmet and shield and lance; whichever free layman has chattels or rent of 10 marks must have a light hauberk [aubergel], an iron cap and a lance.

(3) Likewise all burgesses and the whole body of free men must have a gambeson [wambais], an iron cap and a lance.

(4) To that end everyone must swear an oath before the Feast of St Hilary [Jan 13] that they will have these arms and will carry them faithfully for our lord king Henry, son of the Empress Matilda, and that he will be armed according to this order in allegiance to our lord king and his realm. And none who have these arms must sell them nor pledge them nor give them away nor in any way alienate them; no lord must in any way deprive his men of them, not as punishment nor as a gift or as a pledge nor in any other fashion.

(5) If anyone who has arms should die, his arms should remain with his heir. And if the heir is of too tender age to use the arms, he who has him in wardship should have them, and he should find a man to hold these arms in the service of the lord king until the heir comes of age to carry said arms, then let him have them.

Strangely it doesn't mention bows given the importance of the weapon even in the early twelfth century such as shown at the battle of the Standard. Maybe it was assumed, but they are specified in the 1252 Assize of Arms.

I'm sure there is more relevant detail closer to the mid fifteenth that will be of use.

Regards,

[JollyBob]

Right, so at that point you'd be expected to provide your own gear? Was that practice continued up till the 15th Century?

I have somehow arrived at the notion that when comissions of array were issued, it was assumed that whoever was raising the troops would provide some if not most of their arms and armour.
Its quite likely that I have it in my head that since in later periods like the ECW, gentlemen would raise and equip their own regiments, that practice would extend back to this point in time.

I suppose though that a livery coat (or even badge), bill and possibly a simple helmet would cover that requirement, with sidearms, extra armour and so on being supplied as per the wants and means of the individual.

This is going to turn out to be one of those "nobody really knows, so do what you think looks good" questions, isn't it? 

 

[Captain Blood]

This is going to turn out to be one of those "nobody really knows, so do what you think looks good" questions, isn't it? 
 

 

[janner]

If you were calling out the fyrd or commissions of array, then they were expected to turn up good to go.

However, when Richard I went on crusade in 1190 (just after his Father had issued the Assize more or less), there is evidence that he took boat loads of arms, armour, horses etc. to supply the men he hired along the way.

So, yes, if you were going to hire someone then they might reasonably expect to be paid and equipped - especially if you wanted them to be as effective as possible. It was the norm from the twelfth century onwards to dress the knights and men at arms in livery. How far down that went would depend on the depth of the lord's wallet and their willingness to pay, but some form of badge to avoid confusion as to who you were supposed to fight alongside/supply was probably a must. Hence, Richard's men having white crosses, Philip's red and the men of Flanders green for the Third Crusade.

My point is that even the lowest freeman was expected by law to have basic arms and armour well before the War of the Roses. I know a lot less about what happened after the thirteenth century. But there will no doubt be someone here who can take that one on.

Hope that helps a bit

[Arlequín]

Right, so at that point you'd be expected to provide your own gear? Was that practice continued up till the 15th Century?

I have somehow arrived at the notion that when comissions of array were issued, it was assumed that whoever was raising the troops would provide some if not most of their arms and armour.
Its quite likely that I have it in my head that since in later periods like the ECW, gentlemen would raise and equip their own regiments, that practice would extend back to this point in time.

I suppose though that a livery coat (or even badge), bill and possibly a simple helmet would cover that requirement, with sidearms, extra armour and so on being supplied as per the wants and means of the individual.

Not quite, there's a subtle difference between troops raised by commissions of array and those raised by your average magnate on his penny. You needed a Royal Commission for a start, which was not so hard to get on those occasions when there were two kings knocking around. The problems began when two kings both asked the same shire to raise troops on their behalf. Secondly troops raised by commission served for free for forty days, with their own kit, the others wanted paying and often equipping. It was common to gift your own retainers and especially household men with valuable weapons and armour etc. I think it was Howard who bought one of his bowmen a particularly fine longbow from Spain or something like that.    

The Assize of Arms of 1252, was the first of many laws requiring 'citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age' (i.e. anyone who owned or held land to the value of 40/-, or goods to a similar value or more), to own bow and arrows and be skilful in their use. It was followed up several times in the fourteenth and fifteenth century by laws requiring practice, so I'm guessing it wasn't a popular way to spend your day off.  

The Statute of Winchester (1285) and other legislation by Edward I, provided the framework necessary for the 'national system' for raising an army from the general population (Posse Comitatus). In essence it created two classes, what we would call the 'men at arms' and the 'infantry levy'.

Besides the Knights and Nobles, who already served as mounted armoured cavalry, it also obliged anyone with income or property over a certain level (£15 iirc) to get themselves knighted and to turn out when required as a mounted man at arms, or to suffer the consequences in court.

Everyone else under that level, but over the 40/- mark were to turn out as infantry, ranging from armoured men with helmet, sword and dagger, through men in jacks with helmet, sword and dagger, and finally men with sword, dagger and bow. I'm guessing that the 'Yeomen' were assumed to already own a bow, as per the previous legislation, and the specific mention of the 'bow' here is that some men who had previously been exempted were now required to own one.

Those under the 40/- mark just had to turn up with a sword and dagger and were presumably given a weapon from shire stocks (presumably originally a spear or latterly a bill, or a mix of both). Theoretically then every man who wasn't a man at arms was a bowmen, if he belonged to the 'middle class', or if the lowest of the low, an unarmoured stick-holder and the majority of the population.

Certain people were appointed to be Commissioners of Array, either by status alone, or by buying the post. They held musters, where they inspected those in their particular county eligible to serve. They produced muster rolls that detailed who had to provide what and how proficient they were with their weapon. It was impractical and not economically viable to call everyone up, but the best equipped and most skilful would be chosen to serve. There was no doubt some profit to be made here too, in the way of bribes paid; to be put further down the list, or to accept a proxy, or to claim ill-health etc. Not many would willingly serve at their own expense for the forty days required.    

With the exception of the Scots Border and the South Coast, the whole system had pretty much fallen down by the 1450s. For the previous couple of hundred years wars had been fought abroad with the 'indentured' (contracted or 'retinue') forces of those nobles and knights who made war their business and funded by those who preferred to 'lie at home in their beds' as Shakespeare put it.

The most well known (or even only - I can't remember) muster roll of the era, is that of Bridport, which was mustered in 1457 in response to French raids on the South Coast. There are 201 names on the muster, of which only 119 have any weapons listed by them. The remainder either didn't turn up, or turned out with nothing at all, it's not known which. Five of the names are women too! I'm guessing that the ones not listed with anything were people under the 40/- line, who weren't obliged to bring much in any case.

In total they had 74 helmets, 2 sets of full armour, 5 Brigandines or mail shirts, 67 'jacks' and a few assorted partial items like gauntlets or leg armour. There were 27 bucklers and oddly 23 pavaises. Some of the individuals had 'hand me down' jacks etc as they are listed as 'being unable to wear them' - The law didn't specify that they actually had to fit, just that they owned them. Weapons-wise there were 114 bows, 70 swords or similar weapons, 64 daggers, 3 bills, 10 poleaxes and 3 mauls (lead-headed mallets).

If somewhere like Bridport, which was a threatened location, was so poorly equipped, what could we imagine somewhere like Coventry or Norwich, safely inland, had in the way of armed men ready and waiting to be summoned? We know that many magnates, like Norfolk and Warwick kept large amounts of equipment in store, but these were to equip their own tenants and retainers, rather than the 'national army', which made them very handy people to have onside in any dust-up. Possibly shire towns also had stores of a similar nature too. Having said that, you can't just hand out a bow to someone and expect them to use it, but you can give someone a spear or bill and expect a minimum of competence in a short period of time.

They must have had some military value despite all this. While the most influential troops in any campaign or battle were the indentured forces and continental mercenaries, unless they were really desperate, they wouldn't bother raising troops through commissions of array if they were thought to be totally useless. Unless the idea was to awe the opposition with the size of the army facing them, something that is unlikely to work well against relatively experienced retainers.

I'd argue that the best of the militia would be the equal of the typical retinue member, bearing in mind that the bigger retinues would also have men who were straight from the fields. As a rule of thumb, the more men recruited from a locality, the lower the general level of quality. In other words it would be better to take the best 100 men from five shires, than to take 500 men from one shire. The same would be true for retinues of course, the semi-professional core of a noble's force might number between 100-300 men at best, any more were off the land - A livery jacket does not a soldier make!

Certainly the admittedly biased or third-hand accounts don't paint a good picture though. At both Edgecote Moor and Losecoat Field, armies largely raised through a commission of array, or which represented a 'popular revolt', apparently broke and ran from smaller forces composed largely of the retinues of their opponents.  

I know it's a long post... and this is pretty much the short answer, folk have written books about it. For my mind Captain Blood's renditions are spot on, civilian clothes, with a hastily stitched badge on. Some town contingents were turned out in hastily made livery jackets (Coventry being one) as a matter of civic pride, but otherwise they'd not convey a very martial impression.

Anyone still awake after that?  

This is going to turn out to be one of those "nobody really knows, so do what you think looks good" questions, isn't it?  

That's pretty much my standard answer to virtually anything about the Wars. The theory of how things were supposed to work and what actually happened, or is thought to have actually happened, is often very different... attempting to pin down absolute truths about it is the direction in which madness lies.  

 

[JollyBob]

Superb post Arlequin, I really enjoyed reading that. Thanks for taking the time to explain. 

[Arlequín]

Thanks and you're very welcome. Too me it's what this forum is about though, each of us offers what we have, be it painting, conversion or building tips, or in my case; vicious lies, slander and misinterpretations of the historical record. 

[H.M.Stanley]

[chuckle]