Forum > Medieval Adventures

Force composition in the Wars of the Roses

<< < (2/23) > >>

Arlequín:
I can't give anything concrete and the ratio would depend on what type of unit we're talking. Potentially overall, there were possibly ten (or more) times the number of 'Billmen' (or spearmen, or stavemen, or I don't know what men) to archers, but these were the poorest (income was <£2 p.a.), least martial and ill-equipped members of society (the lowest income groups weren't even to have to have armour), and other than brief local summonses, hadn't been called up since 1403.

Such was the decline in calling the 'masses' that many did not even keep up the legally stipulated levels of equipment (likewise the case with a fair few archers too). Archers were what was wanted for service in France, everybody else and those 'archers' not prepared to serve abroad, slacked off somewhat, judging by the laws passed against 'games' being played on Sundays, instead of weapons practice.

There 'may' have been a decline in the overall numbers of archers, it's hard to tell, but royal commissioners claimed they couldn't raise enough archers to fill a commission of array in 1457. The reason given was that so many had signed up with the nobles' retinues. Despite the somewhat reasonable levy of the commission (iirc it was for 28,000 archers over all England, barring the Northern Marches), only something like 75% of the numbers could have been raised. At that point, presuming they needed quantity, not quality, that would be when they started calling up the 'billmen' to make good the numbers. 

Within the 'professionals' of the retinues, the commonly mentioned ratio was 2-3 archers per 'man at arms' (which would include 'Knights', gentry and what we have come to call 'Retinue Billmen' - a term not used at the time). Archers came from what we might describe today as the upper-working and lower-middle classes and were hardly the peasants people see them as. Men at Arms were the middle class and upwards, with a few from the 'archer' classes, who had for whatever reason, not become archers. 

The bill to bow ratio gets argued all over the place, as if it was an absolute concrete value. In reality the numbers would vary from village to village, region to region, or from retinue to retinue. The North was 'poor' in relation to the South, so more bill/spears were the norm across a typical cross-section of people, the Midlands were perhaps the average and the South East of course, somewhat wealthier than the average. The numbers of archers to others available overall would shift accordingly. Raise 100 men from a village in the North and you 'might' get 75% spears/bills, 50/50 in the Midlands and perhaps 75% archers in the South East (these are illustrations for example btw, not actual numbers... I couldn't begin to guess what they might be in reality).   

Your Medieval commander raising a body of men to supplement his retinue, had the choice to go for numbers or he could be selective and dismiss any 'empty mouths', or 'naked men' to suit his needs at the time. The bigger the force raised from within an area though, the higher the proportion of bills to bows.

Those are my thoughts anyway... I doubt I've helped though.  ;)

Elk101:
The man himself has modestly not referenced it, but I'd strongly recommend you read Arlequin's blog (link at the bottom of his post) which has some great stuff on the period.

H.M.Stanley:
Thank you gentlemen and i'll certainly have a look at your blog Arlequin

I had a feeling that there should be more "Northern spearmen" in my Percy list [sigh]

Cheers

Captain Blood:

--- Quote from: Elk101 on October 11, 2013, 04:44:16 PM ---The man himself has modestly not referenced it, but I'd strongly recommend you read Arlequin's blog (link at the bottom of his post) which has some great stuff on the period.

--- End quote ---

This.
The man's a walking encyclopaedia on this stuff  :)

janner:
As always, there is no clear answer. Traditional rule sets favour the ration between archers, billmen and MAA of 5:4:1, and this was said to be supported by primary sources, such as the Bridport Muster Roll. This contains 201 individuals of whom 114 had longbows.

However, if you dig deeper you find that of the of 39 polearms listed in this rare muster document (of which only 3 were bills!), over a third are actually owned by men who also had a bow. Which leaves only 12 men with polearms as their primary weapon. The seemingly 'unarmed' ones left over are because I've excluded sidearms.

Further, based on the 1475 indentures for the expedition to France, Ian Heath's in 'Armies of The Middle Ages' Vol. 1, p. 14, wrote,

'The availability of the militia on such a grand scale meant the ratio of archers to men-at-arms was considerably higher than in the Hundred Years' War era, being as high as 8:1 on occasion. Edward IV's 1475 expedition to France, for instance, though an indentured army, comprised 10,173 archers to 1,278 men-at-arms'

My opinion is 4 archers to 1 chap with a polearm is as good a ratio as any  :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page