longbowmen in close combat

[Arlequín]

Thank you, I always like to get feedback from my reader. 

I can never resist a good discussion on things 15th Century-ish. Even if I don't agree with the opinions, or if I'm actually wrong, it's good to get other views on a topic.

I just tend to run on a bit. 

[westwaller]

I have recently read a theory about archers being protected by spearmen (I guess in a similar way that pikemen protected musketeers in later years) Or perhaps did archers fire in rotation, so they could cover their comrades who had finished firing from most of the onslaught of the enemy, meaning that men at arms and the front most archers would only have to deal with those that made contact, with the majority withdrawing back to form new lines?  I don't know, are any of these two valid suppositions? There must have been differing tactics for different situations...

[Patrice]

Up here in Cheshire many of the gentry families traditionally served as mounted archers rather than men at arms.

In Brittany - where a large part of the nobility was not rich - a 1450 "Ordonnance" of the Duke of Brittany says that nobles whose revenue is more than 140 £ must come in full armour and with a number of followers depending on their wealth... but that those who earn between 140 £ and 40 £ may come in brigandine, with a bow if they can use it, or a juzarme, and a servant and two horses; and those who earn less than 40 £ must come in brigandine, with a bow if they can use it or a juzarme.

[Charlie_]

I just tend to run on a bit. 

Run on all you like, I always find what you have to say interesting! Like you I am always interested in discussing absolutely anything to do with 15th century warfare.

The way I see it, there surely was always a variety of different people who made up the ranks of longbowmen, with a variety of different levels of experience, courage, skill at arms, level of protection, etc. I'm sure there would be many in the ranks who had never got 'up close and personal' or used a sword before, and would be hopeless when faced with a fully armoured man-at-arms. But there would equally be plenty of archers who knew how to use a sword, had fought and killed with it in the past, were good all-round soldiers capable of performing multiple roles, possessed rather good quality armour providing quite reasonable levels of protection, and had perhaps decades of experience. Within the the full-time retinues of the nobility, such men would be in noticeably greater numbers. Such men would be there in the thick of things fighting alongside their more heavily armoured employers.
It surely would have been likely to have seen archers dropping their bows, drawing swords and getting stuck in.

And like was said earlier about the archer to men-at-arms ratio at Agincourt.... Consider all the battles of the Wars Of The Roses, when the armies were apparently mostly made up of archers, and archery in most cases didn't really seem to have much of an effect on the outcome of the battle (or at least both sides archers cancelled eachother out perhaps). Is it really likely that the majority of the army stood back and watched whilst the minority (men-at-arms) determined the outcome of the battle all by themselves with their pollaxes?

[Goliad]

With the retinue soldier being a professional, would they have been skilled with bow, polearm and sword? With such flexibility, the retinue lord could choose what tactical combination he wanted to deploy for battle, scouting etc. Maybe as the WotR drew on they knew they needed to tell more of the archers to keep the bows stored and bring the polearm to battle in order to get a result. Of course the fellows who had brought the bows would be able to get stuck in with the swords once the shooting was done.

[Arlequín]

I think you're probably giving a little too much tactical credit. Within the households and mini-households that formed retinues, there were 'professional' soldiers, but they typically also had peacetime roles, such as 'master of the hounds', 'gamekeeper', 'valet', things like that. They otherwise had their own lives and concerns too, so there was not really time or inclination to perfect organised ways of war; you put your own weapon practice in as your personal time allowed, didn't outgrow your armour and all was good.

I doubt there was some 'bushido' ethic at work, where a fighting man was expected to become proficient with a range of weapons. Gentry nevertheless used bows for hunting, while yeomen used 'lances' when involved in stag or boar hunts with their 'betters'. Some men never had to pick up either and probably dodged archery practice like some kids dodged PE at school. So in all you had men at arms who were passable bowmen and archers who were passable lancers; and some men who just looked either part. 

The letters that have survived seem quite unconcerned with detail, it is usually 'bring your men (or bring as many as you can) and we'll meet up at such and such a place'. Your retinue once gathered seemed to gravitate to a one man at arms to two or three mounted archers ratio. The lighter of the men at arms and the more proficient horsemen amongst the archers, made natural 'pointmen' and flankers. In all and in comparison with what was going on with the French and Burgundians at the same time, it was all quite ad-hoc and amateurish, but as their opponents in the WotR faced the same limitations, it wasn't an issue.

The WotR did not provide the same opportunity to train forces as later wars. Men were raised, marched off and were in battle very quickly. Indentured men were in for the duration, but those raised by commission of array were just in for forty days. The Wars themselves weren't continuous and the longest single period of activity was just before Wakefield and shortly after Towton, a mere four months tops. The Barnet-Tewkesbury campaign was all done between March and May 1471 and that of Bosworth within a single month.

I have recently read a theory about archers being protected by spearmen (I guess in a similar way that pikemen protected musketeers in later years)...

We actually know very little about tactics, but we do know that drilling of men in formations doesn't seem to have happened. Musters were all about individual weapon skill tests and viewing of armour and weapons.

'Spearmen' is a dodgy term and not having read the article, the context might be different. A 'spear' was the literal translation into English of the French 'Lance' (which was also used in English). A 'Lance' could be an individual man at arms, or a sub-unit of men and therefore 'Spear' could be likewise. A few historians miss this and relate the term to our modern use of it as an infantryman with a spear.

So 'archers protected' by spearmen, might actually be 'archers protected by men at arms', which is not big news. However we are not so certain as to how men at arms and mounted archers related to each other in battle.  The usual assumption is that all archers were on the wings and men at arms were in blocks between them. As most of these armies consisted of retinues raised from small areas and were formed  from men who knew each other, as well as companies of foot archers raised in a similar fashion; would it make sense to split these up in battle and remove that cohesion?

I can see the retinues themselves in blocks, with a mix of mounted archers and men at arms, rather than splitting the archers away. These blocks of men at arms and archers, would be flanked by the companies of archers raised for the campaign. Everybody stays with their pals and we still have the 'men at arms' flanked by massed archers. The (retinue) archers would need to step forward to shoot, as is described for some battles, but when it came to melee the men at arms would be back at the front of those blocks. All supposition of course.

In the Burgundian Army, where Charles the Bold did have a go at formation drilling of his men, apparently he did try a mixed formation of pikemen and archers though, not sure how that worked out for him.   

[Goliad]

Thanks for the insight Arlequín - here and on your blog!

[levied troop]

I just tend to run on a bit. 

Please don't stop, it's interesting and informative.

I'd make the point that a lot of fighting went on outside of the main battles. For the 100YW there's a fair amount of despoiling, looting and general thuggery to be getting on with, alongside small scale skirmishes. I assume that most archers didn't necessarily take their bow on such occasions as the mass of numbers required to give the 'area effect' power of the longbow wouldn't be present and the bow is of lesser impact in smaller engagements, as well as an encumbrance in looting and a valuable tool of their main profession.

As such you could certainly see archers making sure they had good side weapons and protection, as the 100YW wore on there's a lot of looted weapons and defensive items to be acquired so I can't see any supply difficulties. Archers might not be easily distinguishable from 'man with spear' on day to day actions and perhaps leave the heavier weapons/protection back in camp if they are preparing for a major battle where the bow is critical?

[Charlie_]

I'd make the point that a lot of fighting went on outside of the main battles. For the 100YW there's a fair amount of despoiling, looting and general thuggery to be getting on with, alongside small scale skirmishes. I assume that most archers didn't necessarily take their bow on such occasions as the mass of numbers required to give the 'area effect' power of the longbow wouldn't be present and the bow is of lesser impact in smaller engagements, as well as an encumbrance in looting and a valuable tool of their main profession.

As such you could certainly see archers making sure they had good side weapons and protection, as the 100YW wore on there's a lot of looted weapons and defensive items to be acquired so I can't see any supply difficulties. Archers might not be easily distinguishable from 'man with spear' on day to day actions and perhaps leave the heavier weapons/protection back in camp if they are preparing for a major battle where the bow is critical?

Very good point!

Though perhaps not so much of what you described would have gone on in the Wars Of The Roses, where armies were quickly raised, marched to confront their opponents and fought a battle? I could  be wrong though.

But yes, for longer campaigns on the continent, what you just described definitely fits.

[twrchtrwyth]

When we do get to the Wars of the Roses and troops can be raised for free and serve for nothing, then we start to get hints that everyone wasn't an archer. Richard III was pressing smiths to make thousands of 'Welsh Bills'; which of course implies that many of his levies had no weapons of their own. Troops are also being sometimes referred to as 'horsemen' and 'footmen' too, which covers pretty much anyone and everyone. The difference here is that being freed from paying all but your retinues, you can raise pretty much everyone, but most have nothing to fight with.

What are Welsh bills?

At the Battle of Bryn Glas in 22 June 1402, Glyndwr placed his main battle line of archers on the slope of the hill. The English under Mortimer also had longbowmen amongst their line and a contingent of South Welsh longbowmen on probably the left of the English line. There was a Welsh ambush party hidden by Glyndwr to the left of the Welsh line as well. During the battle there was archery from both sides, the Welsh having the advantage of shooting down hill. When Glyndwr's ambush party attacked it surprised the English and caused quite a bit of confusion. The South Welsh archers then turned and started shooting point blank into the English flank. At this point, Glyndwr's archers charged down hill into hand to hand combat with the English line. So we have an example here of longbowmen in an advantageous position choosing to enter hand to hand combat.

[Cubs]

What are Welsh bills?

It was a type of polearm with a big hook on the back for dragging horsemen off their mount.

[twrchtrwyth]

Was it well known in Wales at the time? I thought most Welsh hand to hand infantry were spearmen?

[Arlequín]

What are Welsh bills?

I've no idea, it was how they were described in that one source. There are various types of bill mentioned across different sources, but I'm pretty sure nobody really knows the difference. There may be nothing but the most tenuous link to Wales as regards the actual weapon itself, as was the case with the 'Moorish Pike'.

That being said, in those 1492 indentures I mentioned previously, the Herbert one was the only one with significant numbers of bills; half the contingent in fact. Possibly the author associated them with Welsh contingents. Despite being the traditional North Welsh weapon of choice, I don't recall coming across any mention of infantry spears after the Mid 15th Century; not that I've ever focused on Welsh contingents though, so that means little.

I'd make the point that a lot of fighting went on outside of the main battle's.

 

This is indeed a good point and we do think about the main battles far more than the host of skirmishes that would take place. A Chevauchee wasn't a pleasant ride in order to arrive at a battle, but a horde of small groups roughly proceeding in the same direction, burning, raping and looting in a wide swathe as they went. One big battle, hundreds of small fights on the way.

Different skills were required for different roles and the same men had to be proficient in them.

[Cubs]

Was it well known in Wales at the time? I thought most Welsh hand to hand infantry were spearmen?

Good question. I think it's one of those things that were attributed to Welsh by the English during the various English v Welsh conflicts of the 14th and 15th centuries, so whether it was more common in Wales than elsewhere, or just something that was picked up on by chroniclers, or just a bit of a myth ... [gives Gallic shrug]. From what I recall the Welsh bill (aka Welsh hook) was supposedly converted from an agricultural bill and given the hook to counter the threat from heavy English mounted men-at-arms.

[Stuart]

Coincidentally the book I'm reading explores this and gives this brief summary. Gervase Phillips the Anglo Scots Wars 1513-1550