Montlhery?

[aphillathehun]

I have this book in French on Montlhery 1465 in the Forgotten Battles series (Les Batailles Oubliees).  When I got it a decade ago I was learning French and understood much more of it than I do now (it goes quickly when you're old, doesn't it?).

Anyway, I've thought for a long time about doing some forces for Montlhery but have more questions than answers.  Here are a few about the French, and I may add more later.

It looks like the French royal army was organized into ordonnance companies with some francs archers also.  For the francs archers, the text of this book seems to indicate (I take full ownership of misunderstanding here) that they could be equipped with some kind of body armor (like a brigandine or jack), a salet, and either a longbow or a crossbow.  Does this seem roughly correct?

The ordonnance lance seems to be a man-at-arms, a coustillier, and a couple of archers.  Were these archers definitely longbowmen or did some of them carry crossbows also?  Did the archers ride to battle and fight on foot mostly?   I gather the man-at-arms and coustillier would fight mounted or on foot as the circumstances dictate, and I imagine the archers would too, but I'm just wondering if there is a known expectation about how they would fight.

Do we have any idea what these French royal companies wore in terms of identifying colors?  I know I've seen something online about period art may show a company carrying a common lance pennon but everyone being dressed differently, but I can't put my finger on that site now.  In this book, the various longbowmen in the Burgundian army wearing liveries and badges looks pretty appealing.  I'm wondering whether that was a French practice as well.

Thanks for any insights and pointers.

[Charlie_]

The man you need to speak to is Arlequin, I'm sure he'll see this thread and give you a very informative reply.

Check out his website - has some very good articles on the French armies of the 15th century, which cover the exact questions you asked.

http://arlequinsworld.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/15th%20Century%20French%20Armies

[aphillathehun]

Thanks for that.  I had seen one of those articles - maybe that's the one I had in mind about the unified banner but not uniform uniform.  But I had not seen the whole set.  They are a gem of a resource!

[Arlequín]

Thanks, but I'm not the font of all knowledge; just a few ideas and lots of unanswered questions. 

Most of the details we have on the Compagnies D'Ordonnance and Francs-Archers appear to be from their respective foundations in 1445 and 1448. As you might expect things changed over time; the first men were those felt worthwhile retaining from amongst the mass of mercenaries released from the French Army; It is highly doubtful that any of these remained in 1465. By 1479 the Francs-Archers themselves had slid from being an effective communal militia in the front line provinces, to something with an awful reputation, that had to be even clothed by the Crown. After 1480 the Francs-Archers tend to be mustered to typically serve as labourers and apparently gained the nickname 'Francs-Taupins' (Free Beetles, or Free Moles).

I'm sorry but I can't really add to the posts I wrote on the French, but you might find the posts on the blog about the Burgundians some help, as they were forced to rely on 'old school' methods to raise an army when the French invaded in 1477.

The OP seems pretty much on the money; 'archers' was a collective term and a bow or crossbow was an acceptable weapon (as was the case in England until the 1500s). After 1465 the corps was expanded and voulges and 'piques' were included, although as a whole the corps was still termed 'archers'. Sallet and jack were the minimum equipment a parish was to provide for its archer. North of the Loire longbows were the majority weapon, South of it and in the cities crossbows were. I have no evidence that suggests they were separated into different weapon types, but the Francs-Archers were organised into 'territorial' units. Presumably when there was a mix in an area, they would be in separate sub-units if there was enough of either type to do so.

Ordonnance archers were expected to be a bit better equipped, with a 'heavy jack' or brigandine and leg armour; the latter an unusual specification for troops who apparently dismounted for battle. Later sources mention breastplates, but at which point the shift from professional soldier to impoverished gentry is noticeable is hard to define. Even in the original charter of 1445 it was mentioned that two archers could themselves employ a servant (coutilier).

The man at arms was expected to bring the traditional three horses, his main mount and two remounts of descending value. Besides his own horse, two servants rode the others; one then-termed the 'valet de guerre' or 'valet', but which we might describe as a squire (which was now the gentry class of France), was the principal, followed by the 'page'. These two were expected to have protection, but the curious mention of valets 'if they are armed' implies something, but I'm not sure what; certainly the ones earlier at Agincourt were 'fighting men'. As valet also became varlet and we have the juxtaposition between gentleman's gentleman and knave even today, you can draw your own conclusions.

Coutilier, Coustilier, or whatever, have a more chequered career. They begin as 'knife-men' (or perhaps 'cutlass-men' might be more illustrative), but seem to have later supplanted the valet, in the Burgundian Ordonnance at least. In England a 'custrel' has become the term for a man at arms's 'valet' by 1492 at least; although he is identified as being different and separate from both mounted archers and demi-lances and the references are always 'a man at arms and his custrel'. 

So a 'lance' is ideally; a man at arms, a valet, a page and two mounted archers, who themselves may or may not employ their own servant. I imagine that someone was tasked with guarding the lance's possessions in camp, so maybe the coutilier had this job at first?

The King employed the captains and authorised a number of lances for them each to raise. The Crown paid the head of the lance directly, who then paid his own team members. Out of his share he had to pay the two archers, the valet and the page. The archers went halves on the coutilier out of their own purses. So imagine I'm short of cash and to be honest I can't afford my valet; I let my current one go and employ somebody like Baldric or Planchet, who will work for food and a dry floor and looks the part in armour come inspection. My page is typically a son or ward of a relation or acquaintance and I'm probably getting paid to allow his apprenticeship to happen, or he's getting three (or two) square a day and a bed, and grateful for it.

So by employing a 'duffer' or a 'boy' to fill in for the valet saves the man at arms a fair bit over the year the contract lasts. The problem starts when war comes and there is actually nobody there to fill the combat role of the valet. Maybe this is when the Coutilier stepped-up and the valet remained in the camp. Just throwing that out there.

Contemporary illustrations show uniform liveries that match banners by 1500, but seem to be a mismatch earlier; whether this is meant to show the diverse types in use, or that there was in fact no uniformity at all, is hard to say. If Burgundian nobles and cities had liveries in 1465 (which they did), then I would bank on individual captains doing likewise for their men. It was an age of conspicuous displays of wealth and your company, well-turned out in your livery, under your banners, particularly if you had enough royal favour to be authorised a large company (very few were '100 Lances', nor do the documents mention 100 Lance Companies), said everything about a commander.

The whole process of commissioning captains to raise companies and be responsible for clothing them, had become traditional by the 17th Century and stayed in place for another century or so. I believe this tradition has its roots in the 15th Century.

I hope that stimulates some thought, or gives reasonable answers to your questions. There is very little that's 100% back then, so there can be some huge leaps of faith to be made. I try to keep mine reasonably short and logical, but that doesn't make them correct.         

[aphillathehun]

I see that the whole coustillier/valet thing can get confusing.  Thanks for all the info here, and on your blog, arlequin.

I think it sounds like I wouldn't be far wrong to compose foot groupings of ordonnance companies as groups of 4 with a stand of MAA, a stand lesser MAA (with brigandines and voulge kind of equippage), and a couple of stands of longbowmen all unified as possible with some kind of consistent livery.

And for the francs archers just men in jacks and helmets carrying longbows or crossbows depending on what part of the country they were supposed to have come from.

I think that works pretty well.

[Dez]

Les armées du temps de Louis XI
Structure et effectifs,
D'après Ph. Contamine (Guerre, Etat et société à la fin du Moyen Age)
TROUPES PERMANENTES
.: La Maison du Roi (Cavalerie)
•   160 gentilshommes (hommes d'armes)
•   31 hommes d'armes écossais
•   100 archers écossais
•   300 archers français
•   40 arbalétriers
.: Grande Ordonnance (Cavalerie)
•   20 à 40 compagnies de 100 lances
Une lance : 1 homme d'armes, 1 coutillier, 2 archers, 1 valet, 1 page
.: Petite Ordonnance (Garnison)
•   400 à 2000 lances
Une lance : 1 homme d'armes, 2 archers, 1 page
Souvent commandé par un capitaine de la Grande Ordonnance représenté par un lieutenant
.: Bandes d'artillerie
•   1466-75 : 2 bandes ensuite de 3 à 5.
40 à 120 canonniers fondeurs
.: Bandes d'infanterie
•   A partir de 1480 (organisées sur le modèle des Francs Archers)
14000 combattants (piquiers, hallebardiers, archers)
•   6000 Suisses
TROUPES NON PERMANENTES
.: Francs-archers (infanterie)
•   Avant 1466 :
•   8000 francs-archers (archers ou arbalétriers)
•   De 1466 à 1480 :
•   16000 francs-archers (archers ou arbalétriers, couleuvriniers, vougiers, piquiers)
.: Ban et Arrière Ban (cavalerie pour les trois quarts)
•   16000 combattants :
•   2500 hommes d'armes
•   Des brigandiniers, des archers, des vougiers, des coutilliers,etc
 
Les francs-archers
Les francs-archers ont été institués par l'acte du 28 avril 1448. Un corps d'environ 8.000 combattants est alors créé sur la base d'un homme pour 50 feux. La franchise de taille dont ils bénéficient leur vaut le nom de francs-archers. Cette mesure ne constitue pas une totale nouveauté. Dans de nombreuses villes du royaume, depuis le milieu du 14ème siècle de tels régimes existaient. Ils permettaient aux cités de disposer de gens de trait aussi bien pour assurer leur propre défense que pour répondre à l'occasion aux demandes du roi. L'ordonnance de 1448 systématise ce principe sur une grande partie du territoire
En 1466, après la Guerre du Bien Public, une nouvelle ordonnance développe considérablement les francs-archers et complète leur organisation. Leur nombre passe à 16.000, répartis en 32 bandes, sous le commandement de quatre capitaines généraux. En plus des habituels archers et arbalétriers, se trouvent à présent parmi eux des vougiers, des lanciers (ou piquiers) et parfois des couleuvriniers. Leur équipement fait également l'objet de nouvelles et précises prescriptions.
A partir de cette date, les francs-archers participent à toutes les opérations des armées royales. Au surplus, ils sont parfois employés par leur paroisse pour des missions ponctuelles de guet et de protection de la communauté.
Cependant, à aucun moment, les francs-archers ne s'illustrent réellement sur les différents champs de bataille. Ce serait peut être beaucoup exiger d'un corps non-permanent. Pire, en de nombreuses reprises, apparaissent des difficultés d'organisation et de discipline. De nouvelles ordonnances tenteront, sans grand succès, d'y remédier (en particulier, en 1474 et en 1475).
Les montres sont fréquemment l'occasion de pillages, entre autres débordements. Les soldes tardant souvent à être versées, de nombreux francs-archers se livrent à la mendicité, vendent ou gagent leur équipement.
En 1469, les Etats de Normandie se plaignent des graves excedz, pilleries et maléfices commis et perpétuez par les gens de guerre, francs-archers et autres. Les exemples en ce sens abondent, jusqu'à l'épisode de Guinegatte, le 7 août 1479, où les francs-archers abandonnent le champs de bataille pour se livrer au saccage du camp de Maximilien. Des milliers d'entre eux y seront massacrés.
En cest an, le roy, advertiz des pilleries et griefz que faisoient les francs archiers au pays, ordonna qu'il n'y en auroit plus, nous dit la Chronique d'Anjou.
Plus que leurs insuccès militaires, se sont donc sans doute le comportement des francs-archers envers les populations et leur coût qui conduisit à leur suppression en 1480.
Les plus mauvaises de bandes de francs-archers furent alors dissoutes tandis que les autres venaient abonder les bandes d'infanterie du camp de guerre récemment constituées.
Longtemps après leur disparition du paysage militaire, les francs-archers firent l'objet de railleries, du Franc Archer de Bagnolet au Franctopinus De re Militaris de Pantagruel.

[Arlequín]

Indeed, but from contemporary Les chroniques du roi Charles VII it says in its original Middle French;

"Le Roy ordonna en ladicte ville de Nancy que tous les gens d’armes qui avoient esté en Allemaigne et devant Mets feroient leurs monstres, et des mieulx en point et plus gens de bien on retenroit XVc hommes d'armes, XVc coutilleurs et IIIm archiers sur tous lesquels il mit cappitaines"

It says with captains, but not how many. Berry and others state fifteen captains each with one hundred lances in 1445, but each year afterwards the actual commissions fluctuated greatly, making the universal hundred lance company impossible to maintain (see below).
 
Despite the above, the lances are then described as;

"qui estoit lui (l’homme d’arme), son page, gros varlet, II archiers et ung coutilleur" - so six men rather than Contamine's four.

Their armour is described as;

"C’est assavoir les hommes d’armes, montez de chacun trois chevaulx pour eulx, leur vallet et ung paige, tous armez de cuirasses, harnois de jambes et sallades, dagues et espées garnies d’argent et lances que portaient les paiges d’un chacun et estoit le dit vallet armé de sallade, brigandines, jacques ou hauberjon et haiche ou guisarme, et avoit chascun des diz hommes d’armes pour lance deux archiers a cheval armés le plus de brigandines, harnois de jambes et sallades, dont plusieurs estoient garnies d'argent, et du moins avoient tous jacques ou bons haubergons"

Which I read as;

The men-at-arms enlisted were to mounted with three horses, each (man at arms) with their valet and a page. They were to be armed with cuirasses, with leg harness and saddles, daggers and swords decorated with silver, and the pages carrying one lance each, and the said valets are armed with sallet, brigandines, jacks or haubergeons and 'haiche' (poleaxe?) or guisarme, and each of the men-at-arms had to keep two archers on horseback armed at best with brigandines, leg harness and sallets, decorated with silver, and had at least, at any rate, all jacks or good braces (non-plate leg armour).

I'm not sure what the context of 'furnished with silver' (garnies d'argent) is, so I've gone with 'decorated' - confirmation or correction is invited.
 
The archers and coutiliers swords and are described as;

"les archiers les portent longues, tranchans comme rasouers et sont a deux mains, et ont dagues plus longues que les hommes d’armes ne les coutilleux, et tranchent aussi comme rasouers"

"The Archers wear them long, sharp as razors and of two hands (i.e. 'hand and half swords' as we would call them), and daggers longer than those of the men at arms are those of the coutilier, which also slice like razors".

My 'literary' French (or indeed much of my French to be honest) does not flow well, so you Francophones out there please shout out my errors.

   

Apparently 1,500 lances was only evident for the 1445 ordonnance; that of 1446 had only 1,463.

A bumper year of 1,614 lances also saw 28 captains commissioned to lead them. Marechal de France Philippe de Culant had 113 lances in his company and ten other captains had the full hundred lances each. Two had 80 lances, one had 70, one had 60, two had 40 and another two had 30. Three had 21, one more 10 and another 5 captains had no lances allocated to them at all. Louis XI was noted for apportioning lance quantities as a sign of favour.

Evrard, Ph, Charles VII et les reformes de l'armee Francaise 1445-1465, 'Le Messager': revue de la Fédération Française de Jeu d'Histoire, 20-25.

All respect to M. Contamine, I am a fan of long standing, but he sometimes looks for order amidst disorder and finding none creates some.  

I see that the whole coustillier/valet thing can get confusing.  Thanks for all the info here, and on your blog, arlequin.

I think it sounds like I wouldn't be far wrong to compose foot groupings of ordonnance companies as groups of 4 with a stand of MAA, a stand lesser MAA (with brigandines and voulge kind of equippage), and a couple of stands of longbowmen all unified as possible with some kind of consistent livery.

You're welcome!

How you represent them will depend on the rules and scale etc.  You could go for one stand of mixed men at arms per base of mounted archers in some rule systems; depending on whether you believe that the coustilier/valets sometimes fought separately, as opposed to standing behind their betters. It might be tactically nice to have 'light cavalry' in a game, but who actually performed that role? A question I cannot answer in certainty until the Stradiots and Jinetes ride into view during the Italian Wars.

[redrob]

I dont know if this may muddy the waters, but there is a near contemporary muster roll for the Burgundian areas of French Flanders of around that time and over half of the troops pressed to service are longbowmen, some have pole weapons. cannot remember any crossbowmen. Many are mounted. Many owe service as themselves. but there are indications as to what rich widows/ tradesmen (these people are named) have to supply. I would imagine because of the very great similarities in economics and landscapes that this was almost precisely mirrored in the French army. This muster roll is from the area in dispute during the campaign. I have not worked out to whom exactly the service was owed.

[Arlequín]

I think you are quite correct to assume similarity.

Whether in England, France, or The Low Countries, service based on income survived, even if it was only as a means of levying a cash payment. The old method was based on individual income, but too many people fell below the threshold.

Grouping such people into income groups until that threshold was reached, solved the problem. They either contributed part of the money to exempt service, or supplied part of the equipment for one of their number to serve. So while a widow would not serve, she might be required to provide gauntlets, or their cash equivalent for example.

A similar thing is seen on the Bridport 'muster roll' (it isn't a muster roll), where seemingly random individuals possess oddments of weapons or armour, or even more weapons than they can carry. The shift is towards 'communal' supply. The Francs-Archers were each paid and equipped by a whole parish (or later sets of 25 hearths, i.e. households) in similar manner.

Longbow shooting was a popular hobby of the upper lower and middle classes north of the Loire, as was also crossbow shooting in the cities. Polearms and pikes were the weapons of the ordinary man in Europe, but only the poorest in England typically carried anything but longbows.

However one continuing trend across the entire area, was taking weapon ownership away from the poorest members of society and a shift to communal stores under lock and key.

[ghpainting]

For what it's worth by now, i ve found this online
https://www.persee.fr/doc/jds_0021-8103_2001_num_1_1_1641
The 1464 list of ordonnance.
at the end of the document there is a list with the names of the  captains and there companie's strenth in lances.