Livery/non livery colors worn by troops during the Hundred Years War

[Captain Gideon]

This question has been raised many times here but I thought I'd ask it again.

What colors were worn by troops during the Hundred Years War.

I know this is a broad question but I need to ask it since I'm still fairly new to the Medieval period.

What I really need are what colors were normally used for the troops and I'm talking about the simple rank and file troops and also the men who fought for a Lord,Duke etc and I'm talking about both the French and English.

One other question connected to this is would a unit of Spearmen all wear the same colors or would they wear different colors?

Thanks
Michael

[tomrommel1]

This is a difficult question and I suppose it won't take long for the HYW experts to answer it in full. I think that you can't really answer that question in a single sentence and there are a lot of different opinions on that matter. Frankly there is not enough written or archeological evidence and as far as I know there were no hard rules on how to equip your troops during the HYW period. I know not much help 

[Charlie_]

The English wore the cross of St George. They are popularly depicted wearing it as a red cross on a white coat, but quite how wide-spread this is I couldn't exactly say. It certainly makes sense that they wouldn't all be issued with smart new white livery jackets.... I believe a lot of the time they (in particular the lower-ranking soldiers, ie archers) would just have a small red cross sewn on to their clothing.

I believe it was only English armies in service of the crown which wore the St George cross, but obviously all the English armies fighting in France during the HYW were just this.

Take a look at these painted examples of the Perry plastics (from their website) - see the little red crosses? If you go that route you could paint the rest of the clothing any colour you want really, or follow the guidelines for the sort of colours available for clothing at the time.



Here's some artwork form Graham Turner (from The Fall Of English France) showing them in the white livery jackets with red crosses.



Both seem like good options you could choose.

It's always worth bearing in mind with the HYW that it covered a long period (over 100 years actually), and obviously things changed a lot over that period in terms of arms, armour and military dress. I assume you're doing the Agincourt period, as that is the most popular for wargaming, but as I've said in another of your threads I think the late HYW is a very interesting period where the Perry WOTR range could be used (the Graham Turner painting above is for this late period, note how the armour is more or less the same you see depicted for the WOTR period).

[Charlie_]

As for the French, they apparently wore a white cross (St Michael I think?).
Seems they didn't really have any national 'colour' they wore it over though, you see them in artwork wearing it over red, green, blue, and other colours. Could be a good excuse to try out plenty of other colour schemes, and vary it across units. One in red, one in blue, etc... or mix them all up in each unit.

Another Graham Turner painting, again from The Fall Of English France. Here you can see the English in white with red crosses, and the French in red with white crosses. Some of the men-at-arms are displaying their personal heraldry too, though I imagine this was very much an optional thing. You could do your men-at-arms in a mix of heraldry, crosses or 'white armour' (i.e. unadorned).

[henryv]

Tricky one, I suspect many wore their Lord's livery, maybe with the St George's cross added, that would certainly be the case in the early part of the wars (Edward III), less so with the commissioned troops of Henry V.

[Captain Gideon]

I thank you for the information so far but the other question is of importance as well regarding units or groups of troops and that question is that within a unit of formed troops would all the troops be more or less alike regarding weapons and the clothing color?

[Charlie_]

I thank you for the information so far but the other question is of importance as well regarding units or groups of troops and that question is that within a unit of formed troops would all the troops be more or less alike regarding weapons and the clothing color?

Personally, I doubt it.

Obviously in wargaming it's always been a thing to have troops organised into different units, all armed or equipped as one entity... But especially in the medieval period, I don't think this is very realistic.

I can't imagine the generals saying "ok all you guys with spears go over there, all you with two-handed swords over here, and everyone with poleaxes come here with me".

Especially so in the HYW.

I imagine all the men-at-arms and other heavily armed / armoured infantry would fight as one mass, and within that mass there would be fully armoured knights, less-armoured knights and men-at-arms, lightly armoured men..... Wielding a mix of weapons... Swords, poleaxes and other polearms, spears... Some with shields, some without....
Though of course this big mass of infantry could be divided into several 'units', as in three (possibly more) large divisions under specific commanders. And it could be that one division has proportionally better equipped troops, which in wargames terms could a higher proportion of full armour (so a better 'armour save' or whatever, depending on what rules you use). Or perhaps one division is poorly led, less organized or whatever (so perhaps a lower 'discipline' rating or whatever). But they would all look much the same in terms of variety of weaponry and armour.

Though the way the English longbowmen were fielded is always up for debate. We do know that they worked in conjuction with the men-at-arms, but not the details as to how that happened. Were they in mixed formations? Were the archers at the front, with the men-at-arms ready to step forward and take their places? Were there heavy 'cores' of men-at-arms surrounded by archers? Were all the men-at-arms in the middle of the army, with all the archers on the wings?
We don't know, and there are many theories.
That will be up to you and how you organise your army.
So despite what I said above about the mixed weapons, you could definitely justify having the archers as separate units to the men-at-arms if you wanted to.


As to spearmen, or 'billmen' and such... I don't think if they were present they would be fielded as seperate units. Mix them in with your men-at-arms and perhaps with your archer units too.



Clothing for units... Again, it's kind of up to you. You could if you wanted have each 'unit' in the livery of the noble leading them. Or have every unit in the same 'national' liveries (i.e. white with red crosses for English if you wanted). Or have them all as a mix of random colours. Whatever you think looks best.

[Arlequín]

I'm not that confident with regards to the HYW, but the red Cross of St. George is indeed the common feature of English (and Welsh) troops, whether worn plain over armour, as a badge on livery, or on the archetypical 'blanchecote' as early as the 1330s.

However in the time of Edward III, the Black Prince's North and South Welsh, and his Cheshire men, were all in a livery of green and white. At the same time the Earl of Arundel's contingent from the Welsh Marches, were all in red and white. It might be presumed that other great names were also displaying their power in a similar fashion.

Henry V's army of 1415 is perhaps unique with regard to the lengthy preparations undertaken while forming it. I can certainly believe a universal white livery was part of that and hopefully someone can confirm that was indeed the case.

In 1482 Edward IV certainly did the same, although I believe that a small livery badge was permitted over 'the heart' in individual contingents. Richard III apparently bucked the trend in 1484-5, by seemingly ordering that red jackets be worn by all troops raised by commissions.

Enguerrand de Monstrelet's illustration of Agincourt shows the English in a uniform white tunic with red cross, with the French in red with white crosses; however it also shows everyone in full harness too.

Another illustration shows English foot in a uniform white tunic with red cross, but the French with a white cross over any colour, as Charlie mentions; I suspect that the French were in their particular captain's colours with the 'national' white cross. This was certainly the case in the ordonnance companies after 1445 for sure though.

I thank you for the information so far but the other question is of importance as well regarding units or groups of troops and that question is that within a unit of formed troops would all the troops be more or less alike regarding weapons and the clothing color?

That really is a matter of debate, as Charlie's post illustrates.  

Documentary evidence alone does indicate only men at arms and archers were in the English Army at Agincourt and that they were formed in units of one weapon type; iirc the ratios would give one unit of men at arms to six of archers (roughly two of which were mounted).

We do know entire companies of foot archers were raised for the war, but potentially those accompanying men at arms might have acted more in concert with them. Henry V's army was quite  different in a number of respects to what had happened previously and what followed it built on those changes, yet became increasingly armies of 'common men'.

There are alternate interpretations aplenty however. Certainly were we talking about a domestic English Army, I really doubt they would split archers and bills* from the same area up and then group them with 'foreigners', that might be a morale disaster waiting to happen.

The French were similarly divided by type, although I imagine mixed units of spears with pavaises and crossbows might be present in the 'third battle'. I'm really sketchy on the French this early though, so don't quote me.

 

* You will struggle to find any contemporary mention of bills until late in the 15th Century - it's not that they didn't exist, just that they were not considered worth recruiting; that's my theory at least.

[Captain Gideon]

Thanks Arlequin and Charlie you're helped me out much with what you said this helps out a lot.

The French Spearmen and Crossbowmen sounds good the Spearmen with their shields in the front and the Crossbowmen behind this sounds logical.

Michael

[Charlie_]

Thanks Arlequin and Charlie you're helped me out much with what you said this helps out a lot.

The French Spearmen and Crossbowmen sounds good the Spearmen with their shields in the front and the Crossbowmen behind this sounds logical.

Yes, despite what I said above about mixing the spearmen in with the men-at-arms, having spearmen with the large pavise shields mixed in with the crossbowmen sounds like a reasonable plan. I think at Agincourt itself these would have been at the rear of the army and never actually got to see any fighting. They could be used to represent the town militias, as separate units form the men-at-arms.

[Arlequín]

Yes, I  agree. Some of the town militias, Paris being perhaps the exemplar, were well-trained, equipped and quite motivated; at least with respect to what was good for their town, rather than what the King or nobility desired. Rural militias seem to have been quite lack-lustre (hence the later creation of the Francs-Archers in 1448).

My shallow understanding of the French Army at Agincourt, was that anybody who was anybody, was pushing for a place in the Van, so as to have first go at the English. Such were the numbers of the well-to-do, that the valets were ordered out of it to make room. Ultimately they and the lowest of the gentry, formed the mounted wings that were tasked with taking out the flanks of the English Archers; leaving any glory to be gained to their 'betters'.

This left the Van composed of the social elite, the Mainward with those a social rung down from them and the Rearward composed of the various militias and other hangers-on. Presumably they decided discretion was the better part of valour and that all things considered, maybe it was best that the English should get to Calais after all.

I've not read upon this, so take it with a pinch of salt; beyond our members who have read up on it, Juliet Barker, Kelly deVries and Anne Curry et al, are your go-to historians for this era.

[westwaller]

If you are using Perry plastics for your project, They usually have a fairly informative information sheet regarding this sort of thing in them- I know the English Army set has one which has suggested livery colours for a few of the participants.

Otherwise, it may be helpful to you to get hold of Armies of the Middle Ages volume 1 by Ian Heath - lots of good info in there but admittedly NO coloured illustrations just black and white line drawings...

[Captain Gideon]

I did manage to get a copy of Armies of the Middle Ages volume 1 on eBay a month or two and it does come in handy but there must be some books out there with color plates on this period so I'll keep looking.

[Charlie_]

I did manage to get a copy of Armies of the Middle Ages volume 1 on eBay a month or two and it does come in handy but there must be some books out there with color plates on this period so I'll keep looking.

Have you got the Osprey books?

In the Men-At-Arms series there is The Armies of Agincourt (though the colour plates focus mostly on the knights and perhaps aren't that useful), as well as French Armies Of The Hundred Years War and Henry V and the Conquest Of France 1416-1453.

In the Campaign series, there is Agincourt 1415 which is a more detailed look at the campaign and battle, but is actually a bit disappointing as it only has I think 4 colour plates and no double-page battle scenes like the ones I posted earlier in the thread (all the other Campaign series I have feature several of these).

[Captain Gideon]

I have 11 or 12 of the Osprey books including the ones you mentioned so I'm pretty set with regards to books but it would be nice if there was a book which had a lot of color photographs like the Europa Miltaria Series for example The English Civil War in Color Photographs.