Force composition, armour and tactics in the Wars of the Roses

[MerlintheMad]

I do read Oman. "History" is largely created, not literal. How we interpret evidence now is colored by our perceptions just as much as at any earlier time. Oman's research was good, his pov flawed in many ways, his thesis a creation of bias that he set out to "prove". I don't see much if any difference in current writers, they all seem to have a point to make, which forms the impetus for their writing projects.

Thanks for your very informative posts. As I have always suspected, warfare in England of the late middle ages was hardly as simple or straight forward as most of us think. On another forum I had a discussion about the proportion of longbow to MAA, and whether or not mounted MAA were a reasonable or useful addition to a WotR war games army. The subject of armor always comes up, and it was argued that horse armor wasn't really part of English armies until the end of the 15th century. That was a new one for me. Gunners rendering horse armor obsolete. Crossbows in the field. Etc. and etc. and etc. If we go by what you've alluded to above, a war games army list for WotR could be quite a complex of available troops types, which isn't a problem to me!...

[Arlequín]

Oh yes, history is certainly created and consciously or unconsciously, the historian and pseudo-historian adds his/her bias to what they produce. There's also little in the way of a career in agreeing with everyone else either, so the mileage is in 'revision' and the refutation of revision.

Horse armour does appear to be rare before the late 15th Century, but then I would put that down to the English usually dismounting to fight and of course the expense; why buy armour for an animal that gets led to the rear? You could put the acquisition of it down to need (they possibly fought mounted more frequently and there was a tangible threat that required that the mount be protected), or you could put it down to those who could afford it bought it as a naked display of wealth... or both even.

Certainly by the Tudor Era there was a distinct divide within the class who had previously been what we call men at arms (they called them 'spears'); you had the 'Gentlemen Pensioners' and suchlike, fully kitted out with full harness and barding, then there were the much more numerous demilances, with considerably less protection and no horse armour. While the name was new (1487 is the earliest I've come across), they were merely the bulk of men who were too rich to get away with being a mounted archer, but too poor to afford the full rig.

The MAA-Archer ratio argument will go on for ever I think, especially as what people call a man at arms varies. The prefered ratio within HYW armies went from roughly equal numbers in the 14th Century, to 1:10 by the time of Edward IV's expedition of 1475. In terms of raw population and if we are only talking gentry and above, and not the wealthier of the yeomen, it was more like 1:20.

Ask ten historians why the ratio changed and you will get eleven different answers. Personally I suspect it was because that your 12d could get you anything between two to four archers (depending on the economic climate), but only one man at arms, rather than any tactical reason. Garrisons in France tried 'foot men at arms' for a time, saving 4d in the process, but it did not last long. The trend across Europe from the 1430s onward was similar, with the French and Burgundians having between 8-10 'others' per man at arms, so the 1475 army was not so unusual for the time.

I won't go into the ratio of bows to bills, for in that direction lies madness. Suffice to say that the ratio would depend on the relative wealth of the region a company was recruited in and how desperate the recruiter was, possibly in equal measure. Companies recruited for Brittany or France in the 1490s barely had any bills (single figures compared to scores of archers), with one exception... that of Sir William Herbert, who had roughly equal numbers of both. The tradition of the Battle of Edgecote has his uncle short on archers too, so with the Herberts being 'poor Earls' and the area of Wales where they held land was also poor, it's not like they could raise more archers even if they could afford to pay them.

I suspect a good WotR army list would have more foot notes and options than it would have troop variety to be honest.  

[MerlintheMad]

Would the "demi lances" category necessarily have exposed limbs though? Including horses flesh? Bards don't have to be the latest plate. If there are armored horses at all, it seems to me that cheaper yet effective bards would continue in use.

Just because the demographics of rich to poor create a population ratio of 1:20 MAA to infantry/archers doesn't mean that that ratio showed up in field battles. Even most archers would not have been suitable military material. The core army must always have been a disproportionate percentage of MAA. During the WotR I wouldn't expect MAA to ever amount to quite fifty percent of a given army of decent size (i.e. as seen in the notable battles). But I don't think that the cost factor was nearly as important for native armies that mustered, marched and fought all within a few weeks. Armies, like the 1475 one, that were going to remain together for probably months at a time and go oversea, had to be paid, whereas the hastily mustered armies of the WotR battles were already paid retinues, joined by very temporary troops as available. So the proportion of MAA would be much higher since economizing was not an issue, and quality certainly was....

[Arlequín]

Depictions of demilances show unarmoured horses, with riders' protection consisting of anything between almost full harness and the brigandine/mail shirt combos we associate with 'lesser men at arms' (a modern term), or 'coustilier' (custrils, costrels and any other variation of the original French term). Essentially anyone not in full 'gendarme' rig on a horse. They would eventually be called 'light horse' (chevaux leger, reiter etc in Europe) although there was little that was light about them in truth.

As for the archers, no I wasn't suggesting 20:1 as a ratio in warfare, just in terms of the population as a whole. There was indeed a disproportionate ratio of men at arms in armies, but also a reduction in the comparative numbers of knights and nobles within that group around the same time too.

As you say, the men for 1415/1475 were raised over period of months, tried and tested to see if they were up to the job and had the requisite equipment, all the usual things English armies did before sailing to France. WotR armies were raised in a hurry, usually each contingent as recruited within a small locale, so you got who was available and willing to fight.

Given that there was no loot to be had, risking life and limb for a few pence a day (or in some cases the promise of it, or out some form of obligation), especially as civilian wages had by now caught up with military ones, probably didn't attract the best that could be had. Billmen are a significant group now, but they were drawn from the poorest sectors of society and were not usually recruited for HYW armies, nor the households of the nobles and their retainers.

The gentry, knights and nobles who took part in the WotR did so out of political and social self-interest, and as you suggest appear to have formed a larger group overall than in the HYW, certainly the attainders for treason in the WotR feature more names of note than the documents for forces serving in France between 1417-53. This group was the same one which provided the king's sub-contractors in the HYW and from the few documents that survive, they and their retainers were maintaining one to three mounted archers per man at arms, either as full-time professionals, or on a part-time risk/reward basis.

Some of these also committed to raising additional men (largely 'foot archers'), as per their indentures and the only way to ensure the speedy raising of forces, was for you and your own retainers to get local men to commit to serve when called. Those with several manors could put pressure on their tenants in various ways to get an offer of service, along with local artisans and tradesmen who relied on their custom etc. In the months it took to raise part of an expeditionary force, you would normally weed out those who were of little use, or ill-equipped, but often summonses during the WotR echo Richard III's desperate "... as many men as you can goodly make" plea, which could result in marching before all your forces were gathered, or additional numbers made up from men you wouldn't normally consider recruiting, like bill-armed men (or indeed men with any sort of weapon) to make up the numbers.

As record keeping was a low priority at such times, we have little idea of who and what were raised at such times. Sources like the Howard Household Accounts give glimpses that can be worked out by the rates paid to individuals and we even know the names of a large number of men who committed to serve prior to Bosworth, or at least what troop type they were, we just don't know how many actually turned up when the time came. Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex where these were drawn from, were both relatively wealthy and densely populated, so may only be representative of similar areas. There is an apparently wide gulf between Howard's 'archer-rich' and the previously mentioned Herbert's 'archer-poor' recruiting grounds however.

[MerlintheMad]

These "light cavalry" could, as already suggested, be fully-armed MAA opting to divest themselves of unneeded or unwanted equipment to do a job that doesn't require it. That would put them in the category of unarmored horses as well. But I was opting for the logical assertion that if a man with full plate harness needs an armored horse (with malice aforethought), he would have an effective bard of some kind, even if not an articulated plate bard. Yes, there are a larger number of "lighter" cavalry, out of economic necessity, than what we term the "elite" or best of the best, the richest, MAA. But surely a significant portion of these "light cavalry" are not poor men, but instead voluntarily lightening themselves by discarding items of their equipment.

The possible proportion of one archer to one MAA is the upper limit of my army list (link in above post; I notice that I did not specifically state that some of the archers have horses, as indeed so would a portion of the other infantry, not just the "hobilars, spear and sword" guys). At what point in army size this became unrealistic is what is unknown: an army of 500, over a thousand? Impossible to say. So I didn't address army size, since the army list is for army sized games as compared to skirmish sized forces....

[Arlequín]

Horse barding was not stipulated as an essential in England (nor France or Burgundy, although Duke Charles mentioned he thought it was a good idea in one of his ordinances), so short of a soul destroying search through surviving probate inventories, it would be hard to assess who had them and who didn't, of whichever type.

'Cavalry' and indeed 'light cavalry' are value laden terms and I try to avoid using them, as it implies men trained to fight as a mounted body, rather than a man using a beast to go from A to B. Many of the mounted men, be they men at arms, archers or hobilars (a term which had fallen out of fashion in the 15th Century, though it does pop up occasionally) were skilled riders, skilled enough to fight mounted, or in some cases shoot (if illustrations are taken at face value)... fighting mounted in a formation that would correspond to 'cavalry' is a different story.

While some knights and nobles still went through the classic 'trained from birth to be a knight' route, as a class they grew rarer and rarer in armies ( whether English, French or Burgundian) throughout the 15th century. By the end of it anyone with 'Sir' (or its continental equivalents) in their name, was more usually in command of a company or battle of lesser men. It was the gentry, sons not first in line for estates, professionals and jumped up farmers, lawyers and merchants (or their sons), who were the men at arms of the later 15th Century.  

Most European armies lacked light cavalry as we would understand them, which is why Border Horse, Stradiots and Jinetes made such an impact when they were first encountered by armies lacking their own 'raider' types. The various mounted crossbow and other mounted missile types in Europe either dismounted to shoot, or may as well have done and there is a distinct lack of evidence that they were mounted skirmishers of any form.

It is conceivable that somebody possessing a full harness might leave sections of it off in certain circumstances, but put yourself in their place. If you'd spent a not inconsiderable sum on personal protection for yourself and your also considerably expensive mount, what would induce you to leave bits off? Certainly the number of famous names shot in the face or throat after removing their bevor served as cautionary tales for all.

Good plate weighed in at about 70lbs iirc, add in a saddle and tack and you are talking about the same weight as a WWI British cavalryman put on his mount (and somewhat less than a French one did). Iron 'munition' types weighed more, but not so much to make a difference. As your underlings had inferior mounts in the main, why reduce your personal protection for no real gain.

Lord Clifford appears to have died in a running mounted battle as he retired after Ferrybridge. The legend is that he removed his bevor, with the inevitable result. As this seems to be first item of armour people take off or try to do without (Charles the Bold lost his front teeth doing that), it implies that if you had it you wore all your armour, regardless of your role or circumstance.

All that being said, to be a man at arms in England only required a helmet, mail shirt (or its equivalent), lance and horse, unlike in France and Burgundy the English statute does not appear to have been updated (if it was nothing survives of that update). For a hobilar to become a man at arms, an upgrade from 'jack' to brigandine or mail was all that stood in his way.

As for army composition and formations, I'm clueless. You would assume that the French War veterans and professionals would form up in the standard formation of the HYW (whatever you believe that was).

Freshly raised troops were possibly kept together in the contingents they were raised into, so a mix of bills and bows and the men at arms of their leader and retainers. Breaking them up to form separate bodies of bills and bows would put them with complete strangers, which depending on where they were from, sounded like they didn't actually talk English, a distinct barrier to communication and cohesiveness.

Raising forces quickly and getting them post-haste into battle meant no shakedown time, nor training in fancy manouvres, so the army that moved had a distinct disadvantage (check the various accounts, the army that advanced first usually lost in the WotR). Rule sets advocating exchanging ranks, or indeed any manouvre (including turns) that isn't a clumsy and slow wheel, really don't work for me.

I picture fairly well-ordered stationary units, or somewhat disrupted and dispersed units if they move. Not a fashionable view by any means, but it fits my image of the time and circumstances. The lack of first-hand accounts of battles does mean nobody can tell me I'm wrong though.

 

[coopman827]

Right or wrong historically, most of the medieval rules sets that I have seen break the troops up into separate units of archers or billmen (and don't allow the units to have both types in them).  This is done probably because the main function of billmen is melee and the main function of longbow is shooting.           

[Arlequín]

I suspect they do that because it's a convenient tool when making a set of rules work. Certainly what evidence we have implies that they served under the same captains, were raised and marched off to war as a single body, so it seems odd that they would be broken up for battle. I can think of no other era where such a thing took place, excluding 18th-19th Century 'brigaded' light infantry or grenadier formations, which is a whole different ball game.

I always took such categories as bill units or bow units as meaning just the predominant troop type, as is the case for later periods where regiments contained a proportion of lights and elites in their number, but the game scale doesn't support representing individual companies to that level. In other words a unit of bills has very few archers, a unit of archers has very few bills, units of men at arms contain a large number of well-equipped men, bills do not. The lie here is that there is no middle ground, so I stopped using them.   

Also bear in mind that rule writers are generally not historians (which is probably a good thing), although some do claim to be so... I've yet to meet a true historian who claims to be an expert on several thousand years of military history, yet some rule writers expect you to believe they are.

You would be wrong in pigeon-holing medieval troop types, as they had a flexibility not apparent in later periods. They did what was needed at the time and situation. Men at arms could be pretty solid and deadly heavy infantry, or they could be heavy 'cavalry'.

Archers shot at distance, but fought hard at close quarters. Some archers had almost as much protection as the poorer of the men at arms and quite a degree of skill with their hand weapons. An archer's primary function was fighting - period; as such they became the preferred English 'line infantry' of the late medieval era. The idea that they were faint-hearted wimps who suffered when they faced 'real men', is a hangover from ancient wargaming where that was probably true of most.

Mounted archers could also take on the role of 'dragoons' and while they would suffer fighting mounted men at arms, they were equal to other mounted troops and at an advantage against footmen. Not all of them were so skilled of course and with the variation of quality amongst their mounts, some were almost literally 'donkey whallopers' and were truly just mounted infantry.

Billmen were perhaps the most limited class, on the whole the poorest equipped and the least experienced, not to say that most were also poorly-nourished and lacked the skill or strength (or both) to be archers. While indeed the bill was a formidable weapon, that only came with knowing how to use it. An experienced archer would make short work of a levied billman in hand to hand combat, a levied archer would probably be in trouble though.

I'm not sure where the 'retinue billmen' that feature in most rules came from though, as a troop type they are wholly absent from the historical record. The poorer of the men at arms might look like them, but they did not form a separate troop class, just part of the greater 'man at arms' grouping.

The usual 'paid the same as archers and so were grouped with them on payrolls' excuse doesn't hold up, as there were a number of craftsmen and specialists who did get paid the same as archers, but are still listed separately. I suspect that they are a creation of some rule writer somewhere and became 'wargaming fact' as a result.

[MerlintheMad]

Right or wrong historically, most of the medieval rules sets that I have seen break the troops up into separate units of archers or billmen (and don't allow the units to have both types in them).  This is done probably because the main function of billmen is melee and the main function of longbow is shooting.           

I've had this out on "the other forum" recently. We finally agreed, more or less, that "battles" were polyglot, but that "units" within battles were not. This would separate out archers from the rest. There is no great distinction between a MAA of the lighter sort and a well equipped "billman". They would lump together to form "phalanxes" of "spears". So you do have dedicated melee troops, and "shot". I don't see volley shooting, saturation of the target area, working any other way. Interspersing shot with the melee portion of each contingent would produce a very diluted sort of missile fire. So it wasn't done, imho. The objection that this would separate men familiar with each other, and put them with men that they don't know, is easily dismissed. The archers of a contingent would continue to stand with each other regardless of where they were sent. The same remained true of the melee troops mustered around their lord or otherwise leader. Each contingent formed companies of varying size, but tending to follow the model of "One Hundred" and "Twenties". It mattered not which other contingents, from wherever, were stationed alongside of your company/contingent. All of you kept an eye on the battle standards as traditional military practice dictated. When it came time to move, you did your best to keep station with those on your right and on your left. You "patched it up" the best you could when things got wobbly and loose. Understanding the lingo of those companies flanking yours was not a necessity....

[Arlequín]

It wasn't the understanding that was important, it was that whether men at arms, archers, or bills, they were at least familiar with each other, or knew someone that was. Even their leader would be known to them. Inexperienced men are shaky to begin with, are you likely to make it worse by grouping them with men who are an unknown quantity?

Getting all of an army's archers to step forward ahead of their contingents and shoot at a trumpet signal isn't complicated and is apparently what happened at Towton with the Yorkists.

Before the 15th Century men fought in 'local groups' and also did so in the 16th Century and the ECW; and in mixed units of missile and melee troops too. The faceless conscript didn't exist until nations started extensive training of recruits and even then most armies kept units grouped by locale. Even now the British Army's infantry and 'cavalry' regiments draw their recruits from defined areas (although with successive reductions the areas get bigger).

In WWI the British even introduced the 'Pals Battalions', with units drawn from very small areas, in the hope of making up for a truncated training schedule by putting men with their mates. Obviously the downside of this was whole villages being robbed of their young men after particularly bloody offensives.  

Probably a bit redundant of me to say this now, but imho in the WotR men at arms, bills and archers fought in the contingents they came in (though I'm wary of saying in ECW-style missile/melee blocks), but the entire archer corps could also be commanded to shoot by a central commander. One period quote mentions "a bow with a bill at his back"... but for the life of me I forget who and where.

Professional contingents of the HYW and Tudor era are a different story however. When you raise a score of men at arms and a hundred or so archers or more, removing the men at arms to brigade them with others is less of an issue. The archers would barely register their absence and the men at arms would also be with both their own kind and quite often known to each other anyway, the pro soldiering circuit back then was a small one.

On a side note 'Spear' was the direct Middle English translation of the French 'Lance', meaning a man at arms (not to be confused with lance fournie, which was the man at arms, his attendants and one or more other fighting types depending on when we are talking). Both 'spear' and 'lance' are used interchangeably in 15th and early 16th Century English documents, alongside 'archer' and 'bills'.

In Henry VIII's day you even have a unit called the 'King's Spears' serving alongside the 'Yeomen of the Guard' and who were fully suited-up classic 'knights' and certainly did not include any commoners. The ME word for the infantry-type spear was 'stave' (staff), as in 'border staves' (later known as reivers).

[MerlintheMad]

SOP made each man familiar with an ad hoc ordering of the mustered contingents. Nobody expected to fight only under his lord or leader, especially if that lord or leader was of subordinate status.

Everyone outside of a contingent/retinue was an "unknown quantity" to some degree. How would lining up next to other retinues be any different than sending the archers under a known subcommander to line up between the archers from other contingents?

I don't see the necessary distinction between "archers grouped separately", and, "stepped forward ahead of their contingents". We have battles where archers are placed on the wings of MAA in the center. This would of necessity require all of the archers to leave their MAA and be arrayed with the other archers from all the contingents.

I'm sure that many examples exist of contingents remaining homogeneous, i.e. mixed arms remaining together. But the separation of archers from MAA also happened. Perhaps with the replacing of warbows with gunnes, the tactics changed such that integrated units became the norm instead of an option? Tercios definitely operated that way. Continental tactics and order and drill must have crossed the Channel.

I am sure that "Pals battles" existed all through the middle ages. At Hastings the Kent "contingent" took its place in the center where it was traditionally accepted it would stand (can't recall at the moment where I read that snippet). I am sure that tradition placed all of the various shire and earldom and royal troops in places in the battle line. That meant that locals fought surrounded by their neighbors.

But that isn't at the root of the question about archers being separated out and stationed on the wings. The troops from a contingent would not be broken up and mixed with strangers, they would stand together.

Yes, "spears" are melee troops, with the best being the nobility and most well off MAA, i.e. fully suited up. But lesser men would muster among them, probably in the rear ranks....

[Arlequín]

Men who have never fought before or even trained to fight don't have an SOP. I think we need to draw a line here between HYW armies which contained picked men, many of whom were career soldiers (their names keep turning up in various documents) and the hastily raised forces of the WotR, which did not.

The households of nobles and their retainers would be pretty much the same as those forces raised for the HYW granted (indeed were the forces usually assembled to form HYW armies), but the rest were largely 'new menne of warre' and in the case of the bills came from a social class with no tradition of military service (Scots border excepted) for over a century. Prior to the WotR the last time domestic forces were raised en-masse was in 1403 for the Battle of Shrewsbury.

'Spears' were what we call 'Men at Arms' (you won't find 'man at arms' in a 15th Century document, only spears/lances) and came from the class above those who were mounted archers... essentially the nobles and knights, and the richer of the Yeomen, along with what were becoming termed 'Squires' and 'Gentry' - men who held land or owned land in their own right (but employed others to actually work it), or had material wealth derived from a profession (merchants and lawyers etc).  Sure their equipment ranged from partial plate with a brigandine to full harness of varying qualities, but all possessed a horse. They might be 'commoners' if you were an earl, but in the same way as Princess Di was 'a commoner' before she married.

All that aside there is no actual evidence as to how armies were formed up, whether divided into homogenous blocks of men at arms/bills, and archers, or in mixed all-arms groups of contingents. Even for a battle we do have some evidence for (Agincourt), the debate over how the army formed up has lasted well over a century.

My own personal view is that in each contingent the 'spears' clustered round the lord, his banner and standard, the archers formed on either side of them and if there were bills, they formed the rear 'ranks' of the contingent as a whole. That contingent was placed alongside other similar contingents. No evidence for that of course, other than the "bill at his back" quote, but then there is none for any alternatives either.
 

[MerlintheMad]

I think we are mostly in agreement here. One point about "new men of war": there were always new men of war. Whether or not they formed a minority, or a majority, for a given battle/campaign, the veterans or trained/drilled men (the "spears") were the ones showing the new men of war what was what. The same would hold true for the veteran yeomen, showing the inexperienced archers how to do it.

I can use a modern, personal analogy. The last "big one" reenactment of Hastings (2006) had an unprecedented number of "fighters" on the ground, somewhere around two thousand, roughly twice as big as the 2000 event, which topped a thousand by some estimates. Many/most of us were not from England much less the "Vikings" reenactment group that oversaw and regulated with "the rules". Reenactors had to be divided off into one of the six parts ("commands") and placed in companies and assigned positions in the six formations (or battles, in fact). Once each participant was standing with his company, in position, note was made of the faces surrounding him(her) and relative position to the standards, etc. The tactics were explained and then the order to move (or receive attack) was given. Combat ensued and broke off. Resumed. Reordering of the line. Move to the front. Retire to the rear between fighting spells, etc. It all went down very well. Considering that we had never seen each other before, and that we newbies were cognizant of the "veterans" in our immediate vicinity and followed their lead.

That's how it worked. SOP was known by a sufficient number of "spears", who formed the front ranks while the new men of war formed up behind them and kept to their positions the best that they could. The side which held together best could expect to win.

We do know how the English army arrayed at Agincourt. The three battles are not an arguable point. The commanders of each, ditto. Archers (some, anyway) in front (at one point) and on the wings, ditto. Positioned well back for several hours, then moved up within long range arrow shot, all are in agreement (by "all", I mean the sources that were there, not the first seminal sources for the battle that sprang up some years later). Any "new men of war" in the ranks simply do not show up, because they were told where to stand and what to do, and apparently had no difficulty following the lead of the veterans. Best source evidence says that Agincourt's English army was actually divided into three smaller armies that moved independently of each other. Each was arrayed identically, with MAA in the center and archer "wings" slightly angled forward like "horns". When these moved into line/contact with each other, the forward projecting "horns" of archers then touched at the furthest forward ends and looked like "wedges". When they stopped and planted their stakes, it created the "in herce" appearance remarked upon so much. They could advance beyond this obstacle and withdraw back behind it at will, which formed the opening tactic that was so effective against the mounted MAA of the French wings. So, we do know more than a little bit about how that army arrayed, moved and fought, and where the various troops moved to during the battle, etc. Erpingham moving the archers out in front during the advance can be seen as a temporary screen that subsequently moved back to the wings, or some remained for the opening stage as a thin line out in front of the MAA, and then moved back to the rear and off to the wings. There is no evidence of how they moved from out in front to the more detailed descriptions that place all of the archers on the wings (and some MAA too, there may have been a "stiffening" of MAA within the wings of archers).

None of these possible interpretations matter or change anything, when we are wondering how English armies arrayed MAA and archers for battle. The various sources are not in disagreement, imho. They are describing different things, different movements. Archers out front and on the wings are both supported by the sources. Archers shooting from behind MAA is not supported or anywhere alluded to, so we have discounted that one. Archers filtering forward and retreating back through the MAA is ASSUMED, but nowhere stated to be the case. That is a battlefield maneuver that is quite common throughout antiquity, including the middle ages. "Open order" lines have no trouble moving through each other. Closing back up into "close order" is a matter of seconds, especially for a line as thin as that of the MAA at Agincourt (only four ranks, empirically stated by one of the eyewitness sources).

It is perfectly reasonable and logical to assume that the last HYW veterans applied this SOP to the first battles of the WotR, and told the "new men of war" in each case where they were to stand and who they were to follow, etc. There was no broken tradition that had to be learned all over again as the English moved directly from their continental adventures and took up killing each other....

[Captain Blood]

Gents, informative as this is, 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.
I've therefore demerged the latter part of your discussion into a separate topic where you can continue debating the finer points to your hearts' content, and take the discussion off into related areas if you so wish

[Arlequín]

I'm pretty much done to be honest... given that Agincourt was 50 years before the WotR and Flodden almost 30 after (where they did fight in contingents), there was clearly a gradual drift from one form to another, when that was is anyone's guess. With no eyewitness accounts for the WotR to go on, it's all a matter of opinion in which anyone's view is as valid as anyone else's. So as much as I've offered a view, there's no saying it's right.

That being said, having spent my younger years in numerous real 'shield walls', I can't really accept that a choreographed re-enactment has any relation to real warfare though. Despite my pretty thorough training, you really have to fight the 'flee' impulse (and one or two others) when facing a few thousand people who actually do mean to hurt you and have the objects/weapons to do it (short of longbows and cavalry obviously) for the first couple of times... try to re-enact that.