Pikemen and the Wars of the Roses

[Tannenberg]

Gentlemen, I have been trying to find out a bit more about the role of pikemen and handgunners during the Wars of the Roses and was wondering if they were used much at any of the major battles.  I have read the Osprey publication which makes reference to the pikemen and handgunners but no details as to how often, and where, they were used.  I did read somewhere that pikemen were used at the Battle of Bosworth....is this correct?  Any help or guidance would be much appreciated on this subject.

[Arlequín]

Difficult one. As with other WoR questions, folk of the time weren't too hot on catering for future wargamers by describing who had what or did what. On the plus side, nobody can really argue a particular position with any great confidence. 'Pike' is also as ambiguous to me as 'Longbow'. Both the the Swiss and Flemings used pikes, yet only one of the two became greatly renowned for their effectiveness with them and imitated by others. Scots spears were supposedly quite long and I don't suppose the difference would be really apparent unless they were facing 'real pikemen'.

My assumption would be that any time you see 'Flemish' or 'Burgundians' mentioned for the Yorkists, assume there are pikemen, crossbows and handgunners (definitely handgunners, they actually get mentioned for once at 2nd St Albans in 1461!) present. For the Lancastrians, the same would be true of 'French' or 'Breton', except that they are likely to be crossbows and halbardiers etc (or not). Martin Schwarz's contingent at Stoke Field are highly likely to be largely pikemen and probably very good ones too. Schwartz was an 'entrepreneur' who had previously served Maximillian in Flanders and other places and while I wouldn't really bandy about the term 'Landsknecht' at this point in time, calling them that isn't too far off the mark.

Documents of the time don't help as they confuse things by insisting on calling spears 'staves' and a 'spear' was a generic term for a mounted man with either a heavy lance or stave spear a lighter lance some other pointy stick thing... a lance wasn't called a lance either in any case.    I can't actually ever recall reading the word 'pike' in any contemporary English document I've come across, but absence of evidence doesn't imply evidence of absence and all that.  

 

[Tannenberg]

Thank you Arlequin....sometimes primary sources can definitely be quite vague and a great deal of 'digging' for more information is required I have only quite recently got the 'bug' for the Wars of the Roses and I have been looking at using the Impetus rules for this period.  I am very much drawn to the battles of Towton and Barnet.  For me, it is a very interesting period in British history.  At the moment, I have the following books....the Osprey publication 'The Wars of the Roses', 'Standards, Badges & Livery Colours of the Wars the Roses' from Freezywater Publications and 'The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Rosese' by Philip A. Haig... would you recommend any other books which may be of interest?

[Arlequín]

Unfortunately my reading on it wasn't for fun, so with the proviso that people are largely scrabbling in the dark with the WoR, my selection would include;

The Wars of the Roses: The Soldier's Experience by Anthony Goodman.
He also did an earlier book in the same vein... 'Wars of the Roses: Military History and English Society' iirc, either or both are worth getting but both are quite dry reads.

A.W. Boardman did a book specifically on Towton. I thought it was good, but it seems to be out of print. I wouldn't pay £55 for it.

My favourite is Blood Red Roses. It's the study of the grave pit found near Towton. A.W. Boardman did the fluff on the battle itself, but the bulk of the book is a detailed and technical examination of the skeletons found in the grave. It's heavy going but kills a few myths here and there. Not for everyone and totally lacking in excitement, unless of course a coroner-like report is your idea of a ripping yarn.

There seems to have been a flurry of WoR books about Towton since I studied it... they all seem to be about the £5 mark, so how bad could they be? Fatal Colours and Towton appear to have fair reviews, but I've not read them myself.  

If you're a real glutton for punishment and would like to know how 'affinities' and 'factions' worked in the 14th and 15th Centuries, Bastard Feudalism by M. Hicks is considered the definitive work. Detailed, dull and if rumour is true; part of China's brainwashing programme for captured secret agents.

The Osprey Campaign books on Towton, Tewkesbury and Bosworth* are quite good and unless you want to submerge yourself deeply in the period, are as good as any of the ones I've mentioned above, if you're just looking to get a feel for the period.

*Excepting of course that the author and pretty much everyone else got the site of the battle wrong as it turns out.

[Tannenberg]

Once again, thank you Arlequin for your reply I have managed to get a hold of 'Blood Red Roses' from the local library which does give one or two very interesting insights and, as you say, kills a few myths here and there...in that respect, very enlightening I will definitely try and get a hold of the Osprey Campaign books on Towton, Tewkesbury and Bosworth

[Arlequín]

You're welcome.  

It came to me the other day that I'd neglected to mention that 'specialists' were seemingly retained on an individual basis too. It's all a bit vague now but,  iirc The 'Paston Letters' mentions handgunner(s?) hired by the Pastons to defend against Norfolk's attempt to take Caister (or somewhere) from them. Then there's the prelude to Nibley Green, where either Berkeley or Talbot writes to the other about 'Guns and Carts of War', which probably refers to light cannon and organ guns, or perhaps handguns and light artillery etc, but the point is that these were in private employ, rather than 'national' or 'big man' employ and in both cases by people almost at the bottom of the military hierarchy. We aren't talking about massed ranks here, but clearly they were available on an individual or small group basis, ideal for a skirmish game.    

[Tannenberg]

That is a very interesting nugget of information Arlequin I did see, in Ospreys 'The Wars of the Roses', some information and a plate in which a German mercenary gunner and a Burgundian handgunner are portayed. It hadn't 'klicked' with me that they may've been more likely to have been in private employ to the people almost at the bottom of the military hierarchy, rather than centrally to those in greater power (which I thought would've been more the norm).  This may sound like a bit of a silly question, but, would the handguns and 'guns and carts of war' have been kept, and stored locally by those at the bottom of the military hierarchy and then used as and when required or, would the 'specialists' have provided them theselves as part and parcel of their 'services'?  Would you say 'The Paston Letters' is worth getting?   

[Arlequín]

I'm not saying they were more likely to be lower down the scale by any means, just that they could be available and in those particular cases were. Gunpowder was an expensive item and I think you'd find them largely 'loaned' or 'paid for' as a body, by outside sponsors, rather than being a formal part of an army. Where nobles etc owned cannon or whatever, they'd likely be stored in the owner's manor or castle, along with armour and weapons for his retainers. If he had guns, he'd probably have 'retained' a gunner to maintain them and to train their crews. I doubt such a specialist would be cheap either. I'm inclined to believe that not everyone had them, but that they were a luxury item and came with an 'image' value. The letter mentioning 'carts of war' is very mocking in its tone ("Bring it, Berkeley!" basically) and the writer was looking for a reaction and of course he got it.    

The Yorkists returned from their holiday in the Low Countries with troops raised there with borrowed funds... which says to me 'Low Countries Mercenaries' of various types locally raised as units and subsequently supported by English troops from those flocking to Edward and Warwick. At 2nd St Albans there were reported to be both Burgundians with handguns, and troops with 'spiked' pavaises (which may have been the handgunners too, it's vague). Once the campaign was over, is it possible that some of them might have decided to tout their trade in England, either as individuals or groups? Certainly it would be easy money, or a soft billet, compared to working on the Continent, where war was pretty much constant.

Certainly English soldiers could be found in quantity in the Burgundian army and it was a popular destination for the lesser nobility of the 'out group' in politics. Sir John Middleton backed the wrong horse in England and went on to command troops for the Duke of Burgundy (he was believed killed at Nancy in 1477). The two Beaufort brothers apparently fought for Charles the Bold at Montlhéry in 1465, while they had nothing better to do as exiles. There were no borders then as such, so your typical sell-sword could pretty much go where he liked to sell his trade and apparently did.

The Paston Letters are worth getting if you're into the period and want some flavour and insight. They've pretty much been picked apart by historians for their little military value, but they grabbed me for their detail. One set of letters is between one of the Paston's and his mother, written during the Towton campaign. Others deal with later events, disagreements and legal tussles. Some are dull, while others are quite captivating. I'd say get them, but there's bound to be a copy available through the library, so you can try before you buy.      

[Silent Invader]

Have enjoyed following this thread as the WotR is this winter's project.

I have Edward IV & the Wars of the Roses by David Santiuste, which I'm finding a very good read and to which Arlequin's posts have been adding a lot of flavour.

[Arlequín]

Thank you 

WoR is without doubt a fascinating period and that was what grabbed me back in the day. Unfortunately it has its frustrations to us as gamers, mainly because the very things we want to know are missing or only partially hinted at. I'm always amused when someone produces army lists and states with authority that 'they did this', 'they had that' or whatever.

I read a thread on another forum, some time ago, in which a guy gave a very good argument, backed up by primary sources, that billmen didn't exist in the WoR as a troop type. Armies were made up of men at arms and archers. His sources backed this up (with the exception of a single muster roll he neglected to mention). Nevertheless you couldn't fault his argument based on the 'documentary' evidence presented, or present much else to debate the matter... except that up and down the country we have literally hundreds of bills (excluding poleaxes, halberds etc) in museums, stately homes, what have you, from that time, that say they did exist (or at least their weapons did). When you consider how many must have been surrendered in the scrap metal drive at the start of WW2, along with those 'beaten into ploughshares', or otherwise disposed of over the years, then the potential numbers of them might be quite significant.

My point is, that if this guy was a wargamer and then went on to write a very popular set of rules and lists for the period, his 'opinion' would soon become set in stone mentally and repeated by other rule sets. Eventually it would become the majority view point and woe betide anyone that dared challenge it on a forum. They may or may not be correct, but they are rarely challenged, nor do army lists usually present the sources used to compile them. This happens in books too and by academics who in some cases repeat in their works, the mistakes or misinterpretations of others they have used to compile their opinions. In turn these 'authorities' are quoted and the cycle continues. It happened with John Morris' 'Age of Arthur', which is still on some Uni reading lists as 'the' book for the subject and forms the basis for at least one of a popular set of army lists, despite being discredited numerous times over the years for its content. 

My thoughts are nothing more than one person's opinions and I'm pleased one or two people have enjoyed reading them. I wouldn't take any of it without a pinch of salt though, I'm going by what I've read and my interpretation of it and suggest you do the same.

 

[Captain Blood]

I always enjoy reading them Jim 
Please keep up your erudite commentaries on this fascinating period.

[Mr.J]

I always enjoy reading them Jim 
Please keep up your erudite commentaries on this fascinating period.

Agreed I find this all incredibly interesting.

[Arlequín]

Aww... you guys! 

I feel like the old guy snoozing in the corner who wakes with a start when someone mentions the war and then launches into a lengthy rambling monologue about his time with Monty in the desert. 

[Captain Blood]

Are you saying you were actually IN the Wars of The Roses? 
Now i suspect you of being a Time Bandit 

[Hendrid]

Interesting thread right enough.

Other good sources for WotR are the many Lance & Longbow society publications http://lanceandlongbow.com/shop.php