Evolution of English armies in the late Middle Ages

[Erpingham]

Because of my interest in the transition in warfare in the later Middle Ages, I've a niche interest in the armies of Henry VII post-Bosworth. On one of my forays into this period, I found this recent article by Dan Spenser Change and Continuity in English Armies, 1453–1513

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transactions-of-the-royal-historical-society/article/change-and-continuity-in-english-armies-14531513/A38EDD1F97BFBDFF2D3CBEE5E5450CB6

This has some interesting things to say about Henry VII' s armies. One is how changing terminology reflected changing practice.  To take an example, did the term "archer" actually mean foot soldier, not all of whom were archers? Did this mean that mixed units of archers and melee infantry served on the later 15th century battlefield?  Where did the sudden rise in the new troop class "demi-lance" come from?

It is also interesting to note quite how many pikes were available by the 1490s.

Now I just have to resist building an army for the period.

[Imperial Dave]

Strangely enough me too...interesting army and period

[Erpingham]

Strangely enough me too...interesting army and period

Plenty of Welsh interest.

[Dave Knight]

Thanks for this - I have had a quick look and will study at my leisure.  One immediate thought is that the English army at Flodden seems to have been more like those of the Wars of the Roses than any more continental pattern.

[Imperial Dave]

Quite right too

Strangely enough me too...interesting army and period

Plenty of Welsh interest.

Quite right too

[nikgaukroger]

Now I just have to resist building an army for the period.

Why? 

[Erpingham]

Now I just have to resist building an army for the period.

Why? 

I could probably make a viable approximation out of figures I already have (I'm only really short of demi-lances).  But the real deal would involve lots of white coated archers and bills and entirely new command groups.

[Jon Freitag]

Come on, Anthony, go for it!

[Nick Harbud]

I already have all the necessary figures for any early Tudor army except, possibly, for those that might suit Warhammer or similar rules.  One thing that came out of using it under various rulesets is that making the archers subunits of the melee foot (that is, bill & bow units) does not really work as the need for the shot to keep within a single move of the bills makes the whole thing very inflexible.  Still working out the best way to use my horse artillery organ guns to their maximum advantage.

I look forward to reading everyone's suggestions as to what this army should look like and their experiences of using it under different rulesets.

[Erpingham]

If we go back to the WotR, mixed bow/bill units are some people's interpretation of what armies consisted of.  IIRC, Hail Caesar and Never mind the Billhooks offer this option. What this means is rather vaguer in the sources. Take the famous quote about "every archer with a bill at his back" in the lead up to Stoke Field in 1487 (yes, folks, a WotR post-Bosworth Henry VII cross over). Is this literal - alternating rows of archers and bills? Is it more generalised - units with bows at the front, bills at the back? Poetic licence - all the archers were in front of all the bills in approximately equal numbers?

I need to reread the article more carefully, because I am unclear what Spenser intends. Does he mean units on the payroll as archers could include other types as well?  Does he intend these were physically mixed together?

If we look elsewhere in Europe around this time, mixed units do seem to be "a thing".  Famously, Burgundian Ordonnance companies had shooters and pikes mixed. Italian infantry also mixed pikes, shields, polearms, buckler men and shooters.  Swiss forlorn hopes in French service seemed to some how mix pikemen (or halberds) and shooters. Francs archers also had polearm and shooter components, though I'm not sure there is evidence for mixed units.

As to gaming the English version, I think I'm most comfortable with archers in front of melee troops who can either withdraw or be forced to withdraw behind their own lines as armies close. They then become supporting second rate melee troops without shooting powers for the duration. This system is certainly used by some period rules.  Provided you are happy to abstract what happens with the archers (they teleport, or something) all is well.

But it is a question that deserves more study and thought, even if I suspect there isn't a clear answer.

[Jon Freitag]

"Every archer with a bill at his back" is an interesting quote, indeed. I read this quote figuratively with a line of archers supported by a line of billmen.  Were bow and bill present in equal numbers at Stoke Field? 

On the gaming table and within each ward, I populate each BMU with same weapon type.  That is, a unit of archers in a missile line, a unit of MAA in one melee line and a unit of bill in a second melee line.  I like the way in which Adrian has modeled the ward as a clump of mixed arms having assorted stances, but I still maintain distinct weapon-types in each BMU within a ward for my game.  I like modeling the explicit interaction between the various lines, but Adrian's perspective offers an interesting twist and fits into the "Mixed" unit approach that Anthony mentions.

[Erpingham]

Perhaps worth linking a discussion on WotR archer/melee formations we held last year

https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=9226.0

[Nick Harbud]

Just a few of my experiences of wargaming with longbows and sundry melee troop types under various rulesets, delivered in no particular order.

First off, let us start with the classic WRG 7^th Ed ancient rules.  In these, the longbows and the bills or other hand-to-hand types essentially fight separately.  However, if one arranges sub-units (or units) of longbows to the flank of the bills, herce-fashion then they get to support shoot at anyone charging the bills on account of they end up behind the flank of the chargers.  They could not do this if they were not separate (sub)units as they would have to align themselves with the front of the bills and would therefore not be behind the chargers' flanks.  Forming the longbows as subunits of the bills saves one a small amount of command points, but limits how they can move.  Also, one ends up with a unit that is 6-8 elements wide and is limited to the movement rate of the slowest troop types, that is the bills.  Therefore, making the longbows into autonomous units makes things much more flexible.  Incidentally, such herce arrangements can be very effective, but most wargamers are not stupid enough to go anywhere near them.

Forming the longbows behind a rank of bills is pointless as the back rank can only shoot over another rank with longbows, not one wth bills.  Note that ordinary bows and crossbows do not have this issue and can freely shoot at full effect over one rank of their own body.  Dunno the logic behind this.

Overall, the problem of a melee unit (pikes, bills or anything else) supported by flanking missile troops is beyond most rulesets.  The nearest satisfactory solution I have come across is in the renaissance ruleset, DBR, which gives Pikes a bonus for having a Shot element to flank and vice versa.  There is also a bonus for having an organ gun to flank, which neatly helps me with what to do with the latter troop type.  However, DBR would not help with bill & bow units as neither may give any flank support to the other.  Again, not sure of the reasoning behind this, but in any event it does not help.  Similar to 7^th Ed, forming the bows behind the bills merely prevents them from shooting.

Of course, one can always abstract the hell out of the whole problem and implement a Looking Glass Solution, but that's the last resort of a scoundrel.

 

[Adrian Nayler]

Of course, one can always abstract the hell out of the whole problem and implement a Looking Glass Solution, but that's the last resort of a scoundrel. 

As I'm a bit thick I asked an AI to explain the Looking Glass to me. I discovered it is a topsy-turvy, reversed world based on a chess game, encountering therein nonsensical characters and experiencing distorted logic. Is that really what abstracting this problem produces?

Perhaps only a scoundrel suggests there is an almost complete lack of evidence for how a later fifteenth-century English battle was fought? In such circumstances, any wargamer's solution to the problem will be an almost entirely fabricated construction. Some fabrications may come closer to the actuality than others but how are we to know? What makes a less abstracted solution 'better' than a more abstracted solution? Nothing; they are merely different manifestations of our ignorance.

[Erpingham]

As we are suggesting ways of looking at archer/melee deployment, here are the applicable rules from Andy Callan's free Wofun WotR rules (basically the same as in the Flodden rules mentioned in the linked topic)

Archers who are attacked roll a dice to see how they react (If the CinC is attached he decides what they
do).
1,2,3 : They stand and fight, shooting once at short range.
4,5,6 : They retreat one move OR (if they are part of a block) they retire behind their supporting company
(Men-at-Arms or Billmen).

A block is not clearly defined but seems to mean a unit of archers in front of a unit of heavy infantry. Both bills and archers can be deployed separately.

A straightforward, pretty old school solution. I'm not sure about the 50/50 stand v retire rule. The sensible ploy is to swap places, so it introduces an element of uncertainty/jeopardy.