Yes, I've been indulging my interests in Late Medieval French armies again. In particular, the infantry element. French infantry of this period is complicated. On this occassion, I stumbled on something about the members of the ban and arriere ban. The regularisation of forces occassioned by the formation of ordonnance companies meant that the career opportunities for nobles were limited. Many, however, retained a status that entitled them to serve in the b & a-b. Many didn't continue to enjoy the resources that would put them in the ranks of the men-at-arms but served instead as archers or polearm equipped infantry.
This paper (https://jpnet.ca/data/archery/frenchnoblearchers.pdf) by James Prescott is a few years old but does look into a variety of muster documents which shed light on potential available forces. There also some useful links to French histories of the 19th century which provide even more details (but in French, obviously).
I found this very interesting but Prescott does have a tendency to over-translate IMO. Thus, the lists are full of dagger men, which we might know better as a coustillier, which is probably the same as a man with a cutlass which appears in another place.
Note that many of the muster lists are Breton, so helpful if you are constructing a later medieval Breton force. There is one Burgundian muster too.
Of course, this may all be well known (Duncan will doubtless be aware of it) but, if not, please enjoy.
Thanks - looks interesting.
Has any work ever been done to compare the forces attested in such muster lists with any figures given for the size of armies engaged in battles in annals or other roughly contemporary records, to get a gauge of how far the manpower fish might be enlarged in the telling?
Richard Vaughan's John the Fearless discusses the issue, bringing out muster lists and pay records and comparing them to the historical sources. In summary, the dukes armies rarely exceeded 10,-15,000 men yet the historians regularly stated up to 60,000. He acknowledges, though, that we don't have detailed information on the "tail" of these armies, which was sizeable and could distort perceptions.