# Medieval Combat



## trackend (Aug 26, 2007)

The Battle of Bosworth is one of the most important battles in English history.
Bosworth marked the end of the short-lived Plantagenet dynasty and the beginnings of Tudor England. With his death at the battle, Richard III became the last English king to die leading his troops in battle and the last king to have no known resting place.

By the time of the battle of Bosworth in 1485 many refinements had taken place in both tactics and weaponry.
The longbow had reached its zenith and the use of it had become well thought out.
Foot troops had become well disciplined and manuals on the use of the various weapons had been produced.
The Knight in his amour still commanded respect but was now more vulnerable than ever.

*The Long bow *
Made from Yew the long bow came in various lengths and pulls ranging from 70lbs to 120lbs or sometimes even 140lbs. Each served a purpose on the field of battle the high pull where the medieval sniper and would target the higher ranks to cause confusion and break the chain of command. The lower range 70lb-90lb pull was the standard rifle man of his day. In fact many arrows had angled flights this imparted a spin on the arrow for exactly the same reason as rifling in a modern firearm.
A good Bowman could have two arrows in flight and one already nocked at the same time. Multiply this by three or four thousand men and the effect can well be imagined. As with modern ammunition arrow heads varied, from the pointed Bodkin Armour piecing to the anti horse Swallowtail and many variation as technology changed. The effective range of a 120lb long bow was 250yards at this range with a Bodkin, the Knights Harness of Amour (the term SUIT (_French_) was an 18th century invention) could be pierced with ease.

At the battle of Crecy in 1346 the English archers found that against the angular amour of the French Knights those archers on the flanks had more effect than those in the center due to the flatter surface presented by the Knight. After this, future tactics would mean using initially, the Bodkin archers on the flanks and the Swallow and Broad head archers centrally.
Another useful lesson learned at Crecy was that the night before the battle it rained heavily the English archers unstrung their bows placing the bowstrings beneath their hats and the French Cross bowmen allowed their strings to become wet. On the day of the battle the rang of the Crossbows had dramatically been shortened and in having to move closer they became easy meat for the Archers.
This is where the saying _keep it under your hat_originates.

These images show the Bosworth battle field with Richard III standard flying on the spot where he is believed to have rallied his army.

A selection of arrow heads and a modern archer dressed in the attire of the day and using a longbow this one has a pull of 80lbs. Also a 70lb Crossbow replica. Easier to use than the long bow but much slower in rate of fire.
Below these are a re-enacting group dressed in accurate copies depicting Richard III and his subalterns in full Harnesses of Armour attended by a squire.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 26, 2007)

Crecy and Azincourt where brilliant victories for the british...good pictures


----------



## The Basket (Aug 26, 2007)

Oliver Cromwell is the last 'king' to have no resting place.

Richard III died in battle a brave man. That is something history has forgotten. Henry Tudor was no more King than he was.


----------



## trackend (Aug 27, 2007)

Cromwell wasn't a King, Basket


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2007)

Very correct. But he was a king to me.
In fact he was more powerful than a king.
Lord Protector.
More right to the term King as Henry Tudor. Or William the Conquerer.
King coz you killed the enemy, not because you were God's annointed.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 27, 2007)

Excellent! Someone else who like mediaeval history (notice the archaic spelling!) . . .

I have read new evidence suggesting that the longbowmen at Agincourt were not nearly effective as they were supposed to be; that the arrows that hit the horses caused the French knights to be unhorsed and, hence, easy prey to the English foot soldiers. The claim is that more French knights died on the battlefield due to wounds inflicted by the foot soldier's daggers, than arrows shot by the longbowmen. If anybody else is interested, I should be able to reprint the article here.

I have fired many bows, but never a longbow; I can't even imagine a bow with a 100 lbs. draw, let alone 120 or 140 lbs. The most I've ever pulled is an 80 lbs. recurve, and that was hard enough!


----------



## trackend (Aug 27, 2007)

The archer explained to me that the arrow is nocked while still in the ground then drawn aimed and fired in one movement as with 120lb plus pull accuracy is very fleeting before the bow starts wandering all over the place


----------



## HoHun (Aug 27, 2007)

Hi Stitch,

>If anybody else is interested, I should be able to reprint the article here.

I'd love to see that! 

>The most I've ever pulled is an 80 lbs. recurve, and that was hard enough!

I believe an 80 lbs recurve takes more energy to pull (and imparts a higher energy to the arrow) than a longbow of the same pull due to the different characteristics of the two bow types. (The recurve has a higher pull in most partially-drawn positions.)

However, that's just something I read - I never shot a bow in my life 

(In an old National Geographic issue, I read that it was possible to identify the remains of some crewmen of the Mary Rose as archers by the way some bones in the left arm and some vertebrae were deformed from life-long training with heavy bows. So you're probably right that it was extremely hard 

By the way, when I visited Bayeux a while back, I was deeply impressed by the large number of archers that appear on the bottom fringe of the Bayeux tapestry near the scene where King Harold is slain. (I had never realized that from the small printed reproductions I had seen.) One of the Housecarls is depicted with some half dozen arrows sticking in his shield (and more incoming, I believe). It really made me ponder the role of archers in this battle ... you'd expect the tapestry to favour the noble knights, so if the archers are given that much credit anyway, I can't help but think they might have been decisive after all 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 27, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Stitch,
> 
> >If anybody else is interested, I should be able to reprint the article here.
> 
> ...



I had read the same thing about the remains of the Mary Rose archers; the same is true of knights, in general. The bones in their right wrist were more developed than the bones in the left wrist from constant practice (and sometimes combat!) with a sword.

So, you went to Bayeaux? Cool! I'd love to go there . . . They weren't really "knights" back then, that term hadn't come into widespread use yet, they were "men-at-arms"; there wasn't quite as much disparity between the lord (or housecarl or whatever) and his men as there would be in the mid- to late-Middle Ages, so I could see why they would feature the archer prominently in the Bayeaux Tapestry.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 27, 2007)

Hi Stitch,

>The bones in their right wrist were more developed than the bones in the left wrist from constant practice (and sometimes combat!) with a sword.

Interesting! I'd like to know the proportion of left-handed swordsmen (and if there were any at all 

>They weren't really "knights" back then, that term hadn't come into widespread use yet, they were "men-at-arms"; there wasn't quite as much disparity between the lord (or housecarl or whatever) and his men as there would be in the mid- to late-Middle Ages

Ah, you've got a point there  According to Bumke's "Höfische Kultur", the German "Ritter" (="rider", meaning "knight") originated in the second half of the 11th century, the French "chevaler" in the 12th century, and "Knight" at the turn of the 11th and 12th century. My impression from Bumke is that the Latin "miles" ("soldier", developed to "serving man" in the sense of "vassal" in the early middle ages, the fief giving them the means to equip for mounted combat so that "miles" came to refer to horsemen) provided the mold for the new terms.

Online Etymology Dictionary

The feudal structure seem to go back to the Carolingians, but the concept of chivalry apparently was fully developed only by the 12th century. Bumke cites the poetry of Chrétien de Troyes as catalyst for the development of the ideals of chivalry in Europe in ca. 1160 to 1180.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 27, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Stitch,
> 
> >The bones in their right wrist were more developed than the bones in the left wrist from constant practice (and sometimes combat!) with a sword.
> 
> Interesting! I'd like to know the proportion of left-handed swordsmen (and if there were any at all



I was wondering about that myself; it only makes sense that there should be a certain proportion of knights who are left-handed, hence, they should have well-developed left wrists, instead of right wrists.



HoHun said:


> >They weren't really "knights" back then, that term hadn't come into widespread use yet, they were "men-at-arms"; there wasn't quite as much disparity between the lord (or housecarl or whatever) and his men as there would be in the mid- to late-Middle Ages
> 
> Ah, you've got a point there  According to Bumke's "Höfische Kultur", the German "Ritter" (="rider", meaning "knight") originated in the second half of the 11th century, the French "chevaler" in the 12th century, and "Knight" at the turn of the 11th and 12th century. My impression from Bumke is that the Latin "miles" ("soldier", developed to "serving man" in the sense of "vassal" in the early middle ages, the fief giving them the means to equip for mounted combat so that "miles" came to refer to horsemen) provided the mold for the new terms.
> 
> ...



Yes; that, the French _De amore_, written by Andreas Cappellanus in the 11th century, and the _Roman de la Rose_ from the 13th century. Chivalry, especially the romantic aspect of it, had a huge impact on Eleanor of Aquitaine and her royal court, both in France and England.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 28, 2007)

Stitch,

The French lost Agincourt due to many reasons. The idea of the longbow cutting down thousands of French knights is one for the glory and history of the English skill at arms; but in actual fact the weather and French arrogance played a much larger part to English victory. Aside from this English position and sturdy hearts are not something to be forgotten. 

The English position was directly across a flat field from the French; which seems foolish at first glance as it would give the French knights chance for an open charge. However, the field was rain sodden and the French knights soon found it so. 

The French seemed to be in a rush at the battle and they charged across the field into a hail of fire from the English longbows. As you rightly said, a lot of the knights were unhorsed from this fire rather than killed. But what did more damage was the weight of armour on the knights and the horses inability to manage the terrain. 

Many French soldiers sank into the ground and ended up drowning the mud as they couldn't get up; some were even trampled to death by their own troops who wanted a go at the English calmly waiting. The charge caused confusion and countless deaths to the French before they even reached the English lines. 

Upon reaching the lines the French knights refused to fight the longbowmen and instead chose to fight men of standing in one on one combat; the only true show of courage. This left the longbowmen and their daggers a free-hand to assault the exhausted French knights much to the dismay of the French after they were routed. 

Had the French knights seen the need to take on the English longbowmen, men of no standing, then they may have routed the English weapon of choice - instead honour and glory stood in the way of victory when the French reached the English lines. But before they even got there, the longbow, muddy ground and French gung-ho assault led to many losses that were easily avoidable.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 28, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Stitch,
> 
> but in actual fact the weather and French arrogance played a much larger part to English victory.



The French being arrogant....thats a "new" thing....look what happened in WW2 tot them...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 28, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Stitch,
> 
> The French lost Agincourt due to many reasons. The idea of the longbow cutting down thousands of French knights is one for the glory and history of the English skill at arms; but in actual fact the weather and French arrogance played a much larger part to English victory. Aside from this English position and sturdy hearts are not something to be forgotten.
> 
> ...



Excellent analysis . . . 

Yes, I think the French were their own worst enemy; they essentially lost the battle before it was even joined due to "chivalry". A noble concept with many virtues, but in this case it worked against the French and brought about their defeat.

It also points up the difference between fighting as a unit (the English), and individual acts of heroism (the French); the English tended to stick together and fight as a unit, partly because they had to, whereas the French did not coordinate their offensive and broke-up into individual groups attacking the English piecemeal. They should've learned their lesson from the Roman legions . . .


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 28, 2007)

I believe many of the french knights weren't even on horses.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 28, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I believe many of the french knights weren't even on horses.



Well, yeah, a lot of the horses got shot out from underneath the French knights by the English longbowmen. 

Also, they weren't exactly fighting in "horse country"; as plan_D said above, it was very boggy terrain, with puddles of water, that the horses tended to get stuck in. Unfortunately, dismounted, the French knights didn't fare much better.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 29, 2007)

I have heard exactly what plan D said somewhere else as well Documentry on TV........


----------



## trackend (Aug 29, 2007)

Changing the subject just a tad from longbows large numbers of the foot troops tended to be enlisted or more likely pressed into service from the farming communities so the weapons employed usually started life as a farm impliment the pitch fork or Bill hook being the most common however even simple impliments such as these had drills and manuals written about them and in the case of the Billhook a longer shaft was fitted and and additional spikes or flukes attached the idea being that the weapon could now be used for stabbing and drawing as well as slashing. 
If you had recieved a wound from the drawing of a bill it would be said that,
_"it was a fluke"_(hence the saying).
The Pitch fork was not just for stabbing, wrists and ankles could be broken by catching an opponants limb between the prongs and sharply rotating the fork. 
The picture below shows a typical English bill with the addition of a fluke on the side and stabbing blade or as was known at the time _Bayonet_ (French word origins) fitted.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 29, 2007)

Soundbreaker,

You're right, there were French knights who were on foot. It was a common thing for knights to dismount before combat; especially in the English armies where horsed knights never seemed to have caught on like in France. The English liked to fight on foot and developed the deadly combination of pike and bow. 

The European armies were certainly in shock with the arrival of the Mongols whom relied on the horse like no other. The mobility of the mongols was like blitzkrieg through eastern Europe.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 29, 2007)

trackend, was that picture taken at a Renaissance Faire or something? We've got our local Renaissance Faire coming up starting next week, I'd really like to attend again this year.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 29, 2007)

In Colorado, the closest Fair to me is the Scottish Festival, in Estes Park. This year it goes from September 6 - 9. 

It's go a lot of Scotty stuff like bagpipes and jigging, but it also has events like jousting, and last year my sister said they had a catapult. The jousting was good, first time I ever saw it.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 30, 2007)

Hi Trackend,

>If you had recieved a wound from the drawing of a bill it would be said that,
_"it was a fluke"_(hence the saying).

Hm, if I read etymonline right, this saying was first recorded in 1857:

Online Etymology Dictionary

By the way, you can search for expression with medieval roots on etymonline:

Online Etymology Dictionary

Great fun, but I have no idea how accurate the site might be 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## trackend (Aug 30, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hm, if I read etymonline right, this saying was first recorded in 1857:



Thanks for the input HH however I disagree with that site. The expression a fluke does mean as roughly explained in your link it also means an unusual or stroke of luck (_Collins concise dictionary_) but the word in itself describes the shape not the action, Getting caught with a fluke is I still believe the origin.
It was unlucky for this to happen as you must have already managed to avoid the initial thrust of a bill but where caught on the draw by the fluke, which for the user of the bill was indeed a fluke. 




SoD Stitch said:


> trackend, was that picture taken at a Renaissance Faire or something? We've got our local Renaissance Faire coming up starting next week, I'd really like to attend again this year.



Detling SS have a look at the Detling 2007 thread


Carrying on the pole arms theme and linking with Plan D's post on foot Knights
anyone who knows someone with the name of Catch-pole may be interested in the picture below as this is a Catch-pole. The idea was for the guy to get behind a Knight or someone worth ransoming and push this spring loaded manacle around their neck the pole was long enough to keep the captive at a safe distance and he could be forced off the field of battle for later ransoming, which was very handy as a subsidy collection method for funding campaigns. The original catch-poles had spikes inside the collar so if you caught a sub standard hostage, with a good hard push you could skewer him then go and look for someone more profitable.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 30, 2007)

trackend said:


> Carrying on the pole arms theme and linking with Plan D's post on foot Knights
> anyone who knows someone with the name of Catch-pole may be interested in the picture below as this is a Catch-pole. The idea was for the guy to get behind a Knight or someone worth ransoming and push this spring loaded manacle around their neck the pole was long enough to keep the captive at a safe distance and he could be forced off the field of battle for later ransoming, which was very handy as a subsidy collection method for funding campaigns. The original catch-poles had spikes inside the collar so if you caught a sub standard hostage, with a good hard push you could skewer him then go and look for someone more profitable.



There were more than a few English knights who made their fortunes over in France during the 100-Years' War; some of them had more than they could carry back to England and had to leave it in Calais.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2007)

A lot of money could be made on land, yes, but most military expeditions were funded by the deeds done at sea. Men of standing throughout the medieval and imperial ages found themselves upon the sea to gain their fame and fortune. The medieval English navy had many knights on the land who also served at sea when the time came.


----------



## Clave (Aug 31, 2007)

Fascinating thread - and I know that Catchpole is a fairly common surname in England...


----------



## trackend (Aug 31, 2007)

plan_D said:


> A lot of money could be made on land, yes, but most military expeditions were funded by the deeds done at sea. Men of standing throughout the medieval and imperial ages found themselves upon the sea to gain their fame and fortune. The medieval English navy had many knights on the land who also served at sea when the time came.



Dead right plan D, prize money was profitable ex-navy men often came ashore and set up business to help subsidies their retirement. pubs/inns especially were popular thats why so many still have seafaring connections with names like The Ship,The Anchor, ect.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 31, 2007)

trackend said:


> Dead right plan D, prize money was profitable ex-navy men often came ashore and set up business to help subsidies their retirement. pubs/inns especially were popular thats why so many still have seafaring connections with names like The Ship,The Anchor, ect.



Wow! I did not know that; I consider myself a student of British history (Middle Ages, mostly), but I didn't know that about the pubs. So, I guess it was more profitable to be in the Royal Navy (or Marines) than the Majesty's army?


----------



## trackend (Sep 2, 2007)

You're right SS. Although the army has never as a whole been royal, regiments yes but unlike the RAF and RN its never had the word royal at the beginning. The Navy is know as the senior service as it was the first force formed with royal decree. 
But as you say it was more profitable to be in the navy.
Navy pay was poor but so was the armies, taking a ship as prize meant the whole crew got a bonus obviously depending on rank would depend on amount with the lions share going to the skipper. But it was not unheard of for a sailor to come ashore with with a small fortune compared to his normal salary. Which in the 1500's roughly £15 a year,
This Inn is about the oldest in the UK Ive been in its built into the wall of Nottingham castle. Not a bad pint either I took the shot a couple of weeks ago.
This link gives you the history behind it
The Trip to Jerusalem - Nottingham


----------



## mkloby (Sep 2, 2007)

Nice shot. Why is it that there's the British Army and ROYAL Air Force and ROYAL Navy? I don't understand that... they were formed by royal decree - is that what you mentioned above?


----------



## trackend (Sep 6, 2007)

Basically its that Henry the VIII wanted his own navy so he had one built which made it the Kings Navy or Royal Navy before this time ships tended to either be supplied buy the same source as the armies the lords,gentry ect or were built and then sold off after they had been used virtually none of them were a standing (permanent) force the loyalty of the lords ect was assured by bribery with gifts of land and wealth issued out by the monarchs and mostly it was how they got to their positions in the first place. The king only had a limited standing force of his own and not big enough for a major campaign but enough to keep the odd lord ect in check should he go off the rails. So what you end up with is various regiments/forces owned or supplied by the gentry but not directly the Kings own forces where as the Navy was the monarchs navy under his/her control and by allowing prize money for the crews it helped ensure it remained loyal (of course the biggest share of the prize always went to the monarch). As far as I know this is briefly how it came about but obviously the Army has its Royal patronage such as the Royal Anglian, Royal Engineers etc ect but it was never a single army directly run/owned by the monarchs . The RAF became the Royal Air force after the amalgamation of Royal Naval Air Service Royal Flying Corps in I believe 1918 but the name Royal was for patronage reasons and obviously nothing to do with who controlled the force.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 6, 2007)

Good info. Thanks for the reply Trackend.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 10, 2007)

A standing "Royal Navy" was created at the end of Henry VIII's rule. It is widely accepted that Henry VIII was a visionary and saw the requirement for a large standing navy. However, it seems more likely that Henry VIII created the _need_ for the navy with his ambitions that led to an isolated England. 

A large contribution to the English navy was the excise tax, but throughout the centuries there had been countless taxes and extortion methods to provide for the navy. What 16th Century England did achieve was a long lasting navy with the creation of a naval structure; administration and logistical support. However, Henry VIII proved his short-sight as it was not he who developed the naval adminstration. 

An average figure in the 1550s for all seaman (this is the average of 'deadshare' and all ranks) was 9s 4d (s = schillings, d = pence) a (28-day) month. The first actual pay scale for rank was in 1582:

For a (28-day) month):

1st Rate:

Master - £2 1s 8d 
Master Gunner - 10s
Surgeon - 15s
Seaman - 10s 

2nd Rate:

Master - £2
Master Gunner - 10s
Surgeon - 15s
Seaman - 10s

6th Rate:

Master - £1 1s 8d
Master Gunner - 10s
Surgeon - (N/A)
Seaman - 10s

I have the other positions and other rates of ships if anyone is interested.


----------



## DOUGRD (Sep 10, 2007)

Fascinating thread guys!!!!!!!! MORE-MORE!!


----------



## trackend (Oct 6, 2007)

To add to the naval theme heres a few nautical terms

* Brig * One of the smaller but more versatile warships of the sailing era was the two masted 'brigantine' (French word for 'Bandit'), or 'brig' as it was abbreviated by the Royal Navy. Small, fast, and well-armed for its size, it served as a scout for the bigger ships, patrol vessel, convoy escort, and errand boy for the fleet. In the last case, it would often be used to run mail, fresh provisions, spare parts, and personnel back and forth to England. Admiral Nelson found them very handy to transport prisoners of war. So many were his victories and so great was his success that for a period of time nearly every brig arriving in England had prisoners aboard, and so many were modified as sea going jails for this express purpose. With every ship having at least one or two troublesome crewmen as well as an occasional prisoner of war, it was customary to put him in the ships own "brig" for a spell. 

*Gung-Ho* - Someone enthusiastic about a job, mission, or effort. Usually applied to US Marines and often among themselves as both an insult and a compliment. It is a Chinese phrase meaning, "work together", or "all together", such as when pulling a heavy weight. This was adopted by US Marines stationed in China just before WW II, and then later formalized as the official slogan for Marine Colonel Carlson's Second Marine Raider Battalion.

*Bitter End* From the old Norse word "bitt" or beam. A pair of posts fixed on the deck of a ship for securing lines. "Bitter" became a term for a single turn of a cable around the bitts, which was usually the very end of the rope. It became applied to a situation when a person was at the last extremity or very end of his resources. A parallel definition comes from the end of a rope that sometimes hangs over the side of a ship and is closest to the ocean. It's very end is "salty" or "bitter" since it often trails in the water.

* Bo'sun* Variation of 'Boatswain'. Medieval English in origin. 'Boot' (boat) + 'Swain' (Boy, or Servant). A petty officer on a merchant ship having charge of hull maintenance and related 

*Between the Devil and The Deep Blue Sea* - Falling Overboard, and in great danger. The "Devil" is the longest strake, or seam of the ship's bottom. A luckless sailor who fell overboard and submerged in this fashion had little choice or chance, since he was at the very bottom of the ship.

*Before the Mast *- Signing on a ship's crew as an ordinary seaman on a merchant vessel, or sometimes as an enlisted sailor on a naval ship. It refers to the fact that the ship rapidly narrows towards the bow after the foremost mast, where it is impractical to stow cargo. Quite naturally, especially aboard merchantmen, it is where the regular crew have their sleeping quarters. Officers and passengers had theirs aft. Popularized by Richard Dana's novel, "Two Years Before the Mast" 

*Ahoy* - This was once the dreaded war-cry of the Vikings.

* Aloft* The old High German word for 'air' was 'luft', which was combined with the French term 'a',	meaning 'go to'. thus 'a luft' became 'aloft' in old English. It means 'to go into the air', or 'climb the mast'.

*Yankee *- Reported to be Dutch in origin. Fishing boats from Holland often fished off of the coast of what is now New England. Indeed, many of the early settlers in New England and New York were Dutch, and so many of them had the common sur-name of 'Jan', the plural form of which was 'Janke'. Due to the peculiarities of Dutch pronunciation, 'J' is commonly sounded as 'Y' to English speakers. It has since become broadly applied to any New Englander, and eventually, to any North American.

*Avast * Contraction of two French words, 'Haud Vast', meaning to 'hold fast'. In other words, hang on and stop what you're doing.


----------

