I Wanna be an English archer of the hundred years war

Archived for searching: A collaborative effort on developing a persona affordably and accurately.

Moderator: Glen K

User avatar
Robert of Canterbury
Archive Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Salisbury, UK
Contact:

I Wanna be an English archer of the hundred years war

Post by Robert of Canterbury »

Go to you stalwart rogues! You Yeomen of England, Make your mothers proud!
User avatar
Murdock
Something Different
Posts: 17705
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
Contact:

Post by Murdock »

Go to the Osprey book, it's great!!!

Green and white bocksten tunic (Chesire i think)
tripe hood
Huce
Longbow
Chansses
brais
St louis shirt
turnshoes
short sword and buckler
rondel dagger
archers bracer and glove

arrows and bag
bow case

and you can build up from there adding jacks, a helm leg, harness perhaps. Riding boots and a rouncy later on.
Donate to the Officer Down Memorial
http://atoa.us/index_1.htm
http://www.odmp.org/


To buy stuff i sell go to http://www.revival.us
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

I don't know if I agree with the rondel dagger. A simple ballock dagger might be better for late 14th early 15th. Armor is also possible from a simple gambeson to mail to full plate. Helmets might be as simple as a steel round skullcap, or a mail-stuffed linen cap to a bascinet with aventail. Other pieces of equipment mentioned are mattocks and axes---to plant and sharpen anti-cavalry stakes.

Cheers,
Tim
The Dislexic Agnostic doubted the existence of Dog.
User avatar
JJ Shred
Archive Member
Posts: 10324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by JJ Shred »

French (Geonese) crossbowman:
Attachments
crossbowman_1.jpg
crossbowman_1.jpg (44.19 KiB) Viewed 1473 times
I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see.
Jimi Hendrix
On stage, I make love to 25,000 different people, then I go home alone.
Janis Joplin
User avatar
Strongbow
Archive Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Strongbow »

Being as this is one of my interests....

Get a good bow. It's no fun shooting a crappy one.

A nice yew longbow is great (I have one), but they are expensive and not really necessary. Other period woods are elm and ash.

The great thing about doing an archer is they you can start with a fairly simple kit and add stuff along the way and avoid looking to haphazard, but ya gotta start with a good bow.

Oh yeah... actually shooting it occasionally is a good idea too!

Rondel daggers are possible, especially for the 15th c., but a good ballock dagger works for the whole period. The Lutrell Psalter of about 1340 shows an archer with a ballock dagger, though baselards were probably more common until later in the century.
Michael de Bernay

aka

Strongbow
User avatar
Dave Womble
Archive Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Laconia, NH USA
Contact:

Post by Dave Womble »

Lead weighted mallet...as was said before, for pounding in stakes and IF the enemy closes to melee range, they make great melon pulpers as well.

I dunno as if I'd say armour could include full plate, bascinets with aventails...thats decidedly NOT archer equipment..if you have that much armour, you're either a knight or high ranking man at arms attached to a noble house. Your fanny should be on a horse, not shooting a bow.

Take a look at David Teagues avatar for a sample helm you might have...his old avatar showed what a typical archer would look like as well. I would suggest pointing any questions his way.


Dave
User avatar
David Teague
Archive Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Anchorage,AK

Post by David Teague »

Hello All,

I guess Dave is talking about this old helm of mine...

http://www.arador.com/discforums/upload ... 752786.jpg


My impression of a well equiped SCOTTISH archer from 1388...

without my helm that day....

http://www.arador.com/discforums/upload ... 372365.jpg

Cheers,



(Edit by JT to change images into just URLs... problem w/ http server permissions from Arador)
User avatar
Strongbow
Archive Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Strongbow »

Dave Womble wrote:I dunno as if I'd say armour could include full plate, bascinets with aventails...thats decidedly NOT archer equipment..if you have that much armour, you're either a knight or high ranking man at arms attached to a noble house. Your fanny should be on a horse, not shooting a bow.




Hi Dave,

Some archers are depicted in VERY complete harness. Archers were a kind of status symbol by the late 14th c. and many great nobles had archer body guards. These men would have been well paid and well-equipped. What they wore reflected the status and power of their very rich masters.

About 15% of Richard II's 300 strong archer guard were actually from manorial families, That is, they were from land-holding aristocratic families. They were probably younger sons. Never-the-less, they would have been well-off men of noble birth working for the king. They would have had fine equipment.

In Hardy's "Longbow" he shows a manuscript from the late-14th century, with men in essentially complete harness, right done the hour-glass gauntlets. You can also see this image in Osprey's "Henry V and the Conquest of France."

MOST archers wouldn't have been this well equipped, but some clearly were.
Michael de Bernay

aka

Strongbow
User avatar
James B.
Archive Member
Posts: 31596
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Ashburn VA
Contact:

Post by James B. »

I have something to add about coifs. Many of us wear the 3 peice coifs like HE sell, really in period art you see them on women. Men should wear the 2 peice like HE sells, even then these are more of an early to mid 1300s item and are replaced by a simple felt hat like David has on or a hood.

There are many different types of Kyrtles/Cotes/Tunics/Gowns from the mid 1300s that are good for a longbowman:

Herjolfsnes nos.33, 34 - It is sewn shut like a tunic but with a 50 inch waist it is too large a garment to be called a tunic. It is more of a cotte:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... jol33.html

Herjolfsnes no.41 - Another sewn shut cotte. This one has a 40 inch waist and many many gores for a large hem. It also has button down sleeves with 15 buttons:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... jol41.html

Herjolfsnes no.42 - Another somewhere between a cotte and a tunic:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... jol42.html

Herjolfsnes no.43 - More tunic like:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... jol43.html

And the good old The Bocksten Bog Man from about 1360:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... ktunc.html

I can say the Bocksten tunic cut out of wool is one fine looking garment even on a big guy like myself. Everyone who wears a tunic in the SCA should make one of these in wool.

These are not English finds but if you look at the art of the era garments like these were everywhere.


Tim - Roundels are common in the 14th century but with a normal blade not the triangle blade like the 15th century had. I agree that the bullocks is common too and does take over for a civilian blade in the 1400s.
James B.
In the SCA: Master James de Biblesworth
Archer in La Belle Compagnie
Historic Life
User avatar
David Teague
Archive Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Anchorage,AK

Post by David Teague »

Drachus wrote:Cool Dave. Is that an coif you are wearing in the 2nd picture? And what is the white overgarment you are wearing?

Simple 2 piece coif... not padded (it's that keep your head covered in the eyes of God thing that they all did back then)

Edit... you're asking about the mail coif I have around my neck... aren't you... doh! :roll: Yes... my mistake, it's a coif I made with the flap so I can drop the hood for comfort. Since this picture I have replaced all my mail with GDFB riveted mail and the coif is now a riveted standard.

I'm wearing a simple sleeveless jack over mail...

Cheers,

DT
Last edited by David Teague on Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dave Womble
Archive Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Laconia, NH USA
Contact:

Post by Dave Womble »

Well, are we being so general as to include anyone of English lineage who wanted to pick up a bow?

Or are we talking about paid soldiers who were specifically archers, or are we talking about elite bodyguard units? When I think of "english archer" I'm thinking of the males who started training on the village common every Sunday from age 7 onwards...not Nobles and the household retinues and bodyguards.

Does wearing a full harness hinder the bowman at all? I would think a bascinet even without a visor would be troublesome.

Why would an archer need all that armour? The point of using him is too keep him away from the front lines..otherwise, he's not an archer...he's an infantryman or cavalryman armed with a bow as one of his secondary weapons. *shrug*

In any case, I dont think a fully armoured royal archer bodyguard was what Robert and JT had in mind when they added this persona to the list, but I could be wrong.
Gerhard von Liebau
Archive Member
Posts: 4942
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Dinuba, CA

Post by Gerhard von Liebau »

Or are we talking about paid soldiers who were specifically archers, or are we talking about elite bodyguard units? When I think of "english archer" I'm thinking of the males who started training on the village common every Sunday from age 7 onwards...not Nobles and the household retinues and bodyguards.


Then you're not looking at the whole picture. An "English archer" woud most likely be any Englishman who fought as an archer during the time period in question, last time I checked.

Why would an archer need all that armour? The point of using him is too keep him away from the front lines..otherwise, he's not an archer...he's an infantryman or cavalryman armed with a bow as one of his secondary weapons. *shrug*


If someone could afford armor, they'd wear it! Archers were extremely vulnerable to cavalry or flanking manuevers, and would do whatever they could do save their hides! If it meant wearing a helmet and some plate armor, I think most wouldn't back down from the option, just to be able to better shoot a bow.

Armor of course would have been reserved to members of the upper social classes. Strongbow noted that only elite or rich archers would wear armor, and that even some full harnasses have been shown in period. Are you tryin' to counter this by simply saying you "don't think" it would work, even though I'm positive you've never gotten out on a battlefield and shot a bow into a group of thousands of men to try it yourself?

In any case, I dont think a fully armoured royal archer bodyguard was what Robert and JT had in mind when they added this persona to the list, but I could be wrong.


Robert MOST LIKELY added this topic to the list so that people could learn more about their options when portraying English longbowmen. Strongbow simply helped to give another choice to anyone interested, who might be able to afford the plate armor worn by a minority of English archers in this era.

Are you saying that because Strongbow gratiously took his time to post some information for us that doesn't relate to the topic, in your opinion, it isn't necessary? I personally appreciate the facts, and think that you are in fact "wrong" as you say you might be.

-Gregory-
User avatar
Cet
Archive Member
Posts: 2985
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: jobstown, nj. usa
Contact:

Post by Cet »

It's also possible that your "archer" might not be found with a bow in hand at all if he were acting in the role of bodygaurd or garrison soldier, in which case he might well be carrying a polarm such as a glaive or bill.


Not that you shouldn't have a bow! :)
User avatar
Strongbow
Archive Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Strongbow »

Dave Womble wrote:Ok. Sounds good to me Greg.

At least now I can feel confident in wearing gilded lamellar armour and an ermine trimmed spangenhelm along with my rich mahogany shield and gold inlayed weapons...I mean after all, I did get an honorable discharge from the Byzantine emperor.


If they were issued as part of your payment, you might well have them. Sometimes armour remained the property of the patron, and sometimes it was a payment in gift.... at least in the 14th and 15th century.

I guess each of these personas that have been listed should be broken down meticulously into sub groups as well.


Maybe not a bad idea. There is a tremendous difference between a levy archer (getting rarer as the HYW rolls on), a professional archer under indenture (most common), and a household archer of a wealthy lord.

I wonder how many of Henry V's archers were decked out in full war harness?


Not many. In times of full scale campaign, the "quality" of archers would be diluted significantly. Most would have little armour. Perhaps a simple helm and/or jack. But the great lords would have still had their household archers and they would have been as well equipped as their lord could afford. By the 15th century, the depictions of archers in the top-of-line kit drops away. The best are still well armoured (mail shirts and, later, brigandines), but not in complete white harness. The armour they do have might be quite expensive. Some documents talk about brigandines covered with velvet and embroidered with gold thread. Talk about your pricey armour! Some are still depicted in full leg and arm harness, though this seems to be quite rare.



All I said was a typical english archer wouldnt have had a crap load of expensive as hell armour, certainly not a full harness...and you decide to jump down my throat (as if you're in a position to do so after some of your replies in other threads) because someone cited an elite group of household bodyguards who were in all likelyhood the exception, not the rule...


The exception? It depends on the depiction. During times of relative peace, these men would a significant percentage of those under arms. Only during large campaigns would there be huge numbers of virtually unarmoured men. Further, as the HYW progressed, the archer became more and more a professional soldier. These men would have bought or captured whatever armour they could because staying alive is necessary to get paid. Also, arrows run out. Even if you have two sheaves (48 arrows) it doesn't take long to exhaust your supply. Then you might come face to face with a well-armoured man using a pole weapon he is trained to use. You had best have some good armour and a decent weapon yourself if you possibly can.

Whatever. Great. Awesome. I'm glad people can still be an archer and be able to be eye candy too and gorge themselves on armour cake.


mmmm.... armour cake.....

Again, it depends on the portrayal. The image of the scruffy unarmoured peasant-archer might be popular, but it's only part of the picture. The professional, well-equipped man was becoming more the norm as the HYW progressed.

Please don't feel attacked. This is just one of my specific fields of interest, and I've been looking into it in as much detail as I can. For sure, I am still learning, so I am open to being wrong/corrected, but I wanted to ensure we're covering most of the possible aspects of the portrayal.

BTW, I have shot my bow with a bascinet and arm harness on. Not a big deal. You do have to adjust your anchor point a bit, but with a little practice, it's just fine.
Michael de Bernay

aka

Strongbow
User avatar
Dave Womble
Archive Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Laconia, NH USA
Contact:

Post by Dave Womble »

Jacks, mail and brigandines I've seen, but never 14th century transitional or white harness.

I guess I'm guilty of falling for the stereotype.

Were professional (seasoned paid soldiers) archers trained in infantry tactics as well as archery? How often (any instances historically?) were archers able to hold their own if they were overrun or flanked by the enemy?

I've always felt Bravehearts (not the Hundred Years War, but similar)depiction of Edwards archers being routed in panic and chaos and massacred at Stirling to be highly suspect (as almost all Hollywood depictions and portrayals are).

While my primary interest and passion is the Viking Age, I like to be fairly well rounded in other periods and places as well, so that said, Osprey books are a great primer with good general info...they present a good overview of their subject matter...are the ones pertaining to English archers decent?
User avatar
Strongbow
Archive Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Strongbow »

Dave Womble wrote:Jacks, mail and brigandines I've seen, but never 14th century transitional or white harness.

I guess I'm guilty of falling for the stereotype.


By the time you get to white harness, things are a bit different. There are those in complete harness (like Charles VII's scottish archer guard or the Burgundian body guards), though even then, it appears to be brigandines for torso armour rather than a cuirass. But still, jacks, mail, and brigandines are by far the most common.

Were professional (seasoned paid soldiers) archers trained in infantry tactics as well as archery?


Well, we know that Charles the Bold trained his archers with his pikemen. It's likely that the cream of archers (the paid pros like you said) would have experience and training in working with the men-at-arms. It seems likely they were trained to use hand weapons, as they were expected to take their turns at guard and night watch, as well as being able to protect themselves in battle and their lord at other times. Many archers are depicted as using a sword and buckler. As we know, that is a well developed weapons style by the HYW so again, it seems likely that the pros would have had at least a competence in the use of their weapons.

How often (any instances historically?) were archers able to hold their own if they were overrun or flanked by the enemy?



Hmmmm.... well I don't know off the top of my head. I think at Agincourt, a French cavalry charge attempted to scatter the archers with a flank attack, but it was too few, and the horses suffered too terribly from the arrows. There were certainly some times when they DID get rolled up though. Patay is one example. The English archers would not generally be a match for dedicated heavy infantry in hand to hand. But the better among them wouldn't be meat on the table either. In hand to hand combat, archers would be mostly useful in mob attacks (as at Agincourt) or in pursuing a mostly beaten enemy. They also might have been useful adding some numbers behind the men-at-arms who would do the bulk of the fighting.

Still, like any infantry of the period, particularly relatively LIGHT infantry, if you could get to them with cavalry or on their flank, they're in trouble.

I've always felt Bravehearts (not the Hundred Years War, but similar)depiction of Edwards archers being routed in panic and chaos and massacred at Stirling to be highly suspect (as almost all Hollywood depictions and portrayals are).


Yeah... Hollywood... go figure. If I remember, they didn't even show a bridge at the Battle of Stirling Bridge! Ugh. I really wanted to like that movie.

The English archers were not a factor at that battle. Surrey had no idea what to do with them and they waited on the English side of the river while the English knights crossed the bridge and Wallace slaughtered them. VERY messy.

Falkirk was more an example of the effectiveness of the longbow when used correctly.

While my primary interest and passion is the Viking Age, I like to be fairly well rounded in other periods and places as well, so that said, Osprey books are a great primer with good general info...they present a good overview of their subject matter...are the ones pertaining to English archers decent?


Yes! It's Warrior 11 "English Longbowman 1330-1515." It's by Clive Bartlett with Illustrations by Gerry Embleton, both reliable gents.

Although it shouldn't be taken as Gospel, it is an excellent "all-in-one" overview of the English bowmen. Highly recommended.
Michael de Bernay

aka

Strongbow
User avatar
James B.
Archive Member
Posts: 31596
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Ashburn VA
Contact:

Post by James B. »

Jacks and Brigs are a bit late period for the 100 years war. At best in the 14th century you would have a helm and a gambeson or a maille shirt. Not until the end of the 100 years war and beginning of the war of the roses did you have the issued armor like a jack/brigandines/sallet. Brigandines don’t seem to become for popular over jacks until the late 1460s.
James B.
In the SCA: Master James de Biblesworth
Archer in La Belle Compagnie
Historic Life
User avatar
Strongbow
Archive Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Strongbow »

James B. wrote:Jacks and Brigs are a bit late period for the 100 years war. At best in the 14th century you would have a helm and a gambeson or a maille shirt. Not until the end of the 100 years war and beginning of the war of the roses did you have the issued armor like a jack/brigandines/sallet. Brigandines don’t seem to become for popular over jacks until the late 1460s.


Really? I'd appreciate a little direction here. My impression (but I am new at looking at things in the 15th c.) is that the Brig, at least in rudimentary form, replaced CoP's by no later than 1425. Was there a period in there where there wasn't any armour built with small plates on a textile foundation? When did the gambeson transition to the Jack?

As for your statement that "at best" an archer in the 14th century would hace a helm and gambeson or mail shirt, there are a number of well-published sources showing archers with complete leg harness. They are wearing padded garments on their torso and arms, but this is illustration is from a period when torso and arm armour was often covered by a padded jupon. There's even some wearing gauntlets!

Artistic impression? Possibly. But such well armoured archers are not rare in late-14th century illustrations.
Michael de Bernay

aka

Strongbow
User avatar
James B.
Archive Member
Posts: 31596
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Ashburn VA
Contact:

Post by James B. »

SB

I am with you on the leg harnesses and such; I was going down the more likely road for mid 14th. Sorry for over stating.

While the brigandine does replace the CoP for armored fellows you don't see them on the majority of mustered archers in the WoR until the 1470s. In the musters of men in the 1460s jacks seem to me to be far more common.

In truth I cannot say when the switch from a gambeson to a jack happens, I have a painting from as early as 1448 of Christ on the cross with the Roman soldier spearing him in what is cut more like a jack. The problem is, is it stuffed or layered, when did one become more popular if ever? I know the 3 jacks from about 1500 in museums in Germany and Sweden are layered canvas with raw cotton in them and at least one was thinner in the front and worn with a breast plate. Chef has also referred to another jack like garment in many English documents that I cannot recall the name of at the moment. I would say the safe bet is to copy the fashion of the time; I would stick with the gambeson up to 1425-1430.
James B.
In the SCA: Master James de Biblesworth
Archer in La Belle Compagnie
Historic Life
User avatar
David Teague
Archive Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Anchorage,AK

Post by David Teague »

James B. wrote:I would stick with the gambeson up to 1425-1430.

and call it a Aketon while your at it... as English Archers...


and let the French Archers call theirs a gambeson... :wink:

Cheers,

DT
James Arlen Gillaspie
Archive Member
Posts: 2097
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by James Arlen Gillaspie »

Jehan de Wavrin, who fought at Agincourt, says; before the battle, "The said archers were for the most part in their doublets, without armour... " and after, "...the King of England.. caused it to be proclaimed everywhere... that no one should load himself with more armour than was necessary for his own body, because they were not yet wholly out of danger from the King of France". Instant transformation.
You can find a good chunk of Jehan's account in 'Eyewitness to History' edited by John Carey, p. 68.
User avatar
Brian Belding
Archive Member
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Woodstown, NJ

Post by Brian Belding »

I would still go with a padded jack, elbow legth chain mail, and brigandine over that, and a open-faced sallet, because its light weight and archers dont go into a melee if they can help it, but its heavly enough to protect against a few slashes.[/quote]
User avatar
Josh W
Archive Member
Posts: 5726
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas

Post by Josh W »

Dave Womble wrote:Does wearing a full harness hinder the bowman at all?


I thought that, too, until last year. I tried shooting both a crossbow and a longbow while wearing my full plate harness. I had expected that the crossbow would be easier to shoot, and anticipated trouble with the longbow. As it turned out, I had more trouble with the crossbow, as it kept slipping off of the place on my pauldron on which it was resting. The longbow, though, was no trouble at all; I even shot pretty well with it. Surprised me a lot.
"When a land rejects her legends, Sees but falsehoods in the past;
And its people view their Sires in the light of fools and liars,
'Tis a sign of its decline and its glories cannot last."
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

Dave Womble wrote:...I dunno as if I'd say armour could include full plate, bascinets with aventails...thats decidedly NOT archer equipment..if you have that much armour, you're either a knight or high ranking man at arms attached to a noble house. Your fanny should be on a horse, not shooting a bow...


Period inconography tells a different story. Archers in full cap a pie armour are frequently depicted.
User avatar
Jehan de Pelham
Archive Member
Posts: 11405
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Outremer
Contact:

Post by Jehan de Pelham »

Timothy is right, there seems to be an awful lot of iconography showing archers with armor. But at the same time I am compelled to believe that Henry V's marching, sickly army that met the host at Azincourt was not burdened by great amounts of harness. The evidence leads me to conclude that armor was utilized when and where desirable and available.

Regarding the falchion of rumor and lore...what's the skinny on that beast?

Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
User avatar
Strongbow
Archive Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Strongbow »

Jehan de Pelham wrote:Timothy is right, there seems to be an awful lot of iconography showing archers with armor. But at the same time I am compelled to believe that Henry V's marching, sickly army that met the host at Azincourt was not burdened by great amounts of harness. The evidence leads me to conclude that armor was utilized when and where desirable and available.

Regarding the falchion of rumor and lore...what's the skinny on that beast?

Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus


I think availability is the key. Of the 4,000 or so archers at Azincourt, the great majority would have been lightly armoured no doubt. As I said in an earlier post, in times of great campaigns the quality of the archers (kit and skill) would have been diluted in the need for numbers. But during chevauchees and times of relative peace, most archers would have been professional soldiers with professional kit. Many professional archers would hav ebeen mounted, so the weight of the kit would have been less burdensome.

As to falchions, hmmm that's a really good question. I think we've all taken it for granted that archers used falchions, but I can't recall actually seeing a period depiction of an archer armed with one off the top of my head. The so-called "Wakefield" Falchion has usually been assumed to be the side-arm of a common soldier, and if so, it would have most likely belonged to an archer in that time period. (mid-late 15th c.)
Michael de Bernay

aka

Strongbow
montecristo
Archive Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Post by montecristo »

Just after reading this article I leafed through a copy of John Hewitt's "Ancient Armour & Weapons" and found the following lines, which may prove interesting to you gents.

(Translated it back to english from my spanish version of the book)
Crossbowmen were of various classes, some mounted and others on foot. In the times of King John there were crossbowmen who owned but one horse, those who owned two horses (ad duos equos) and yet others who owned three horses. En 1205 the king sends Salop's justice officer one "Peter, a crossbowman of three horses, and nine crossbowmen of two horses", to which must be paid 10 chelins and 4 pennies per day (to the ten of them). The normal pay in this epoch was, for the crossbowman of two horses, 15 chelins per day; of one horse, 7.5 pennies per day, and for the foot crossbowman, 3 pennies a day.

The source is indicated as the Tower of London Close Rolls (Rot. Claus. 6 John, m. 66.)

If you kind gents allow me to compare equally an early XIII cent. english crossbowman and archer I can notice 2 things: (1) There were some wealthy archers, enough to own and maintain three horses and consequentally the corresponding gear and entourage; and (2) the difference in pay between a wealthy archer and a 'middle-class' or poor one was considerable! (15 chelins to 7.5-3 PENNIES) This suggest a social difference as well as one in skill.

I agree with Strongbow in that there are plenty of pictorial references of armoured archers: in plate, maille, or composite kits. The sheer number of these appearances do mean something to me, yet by themselves musnt be taken as to believe every archer involved in a siege, open battle or skirmish or garrison duty (in this order) would be as well equipped.
YMMV as to where exactly the norm lies. In the same book I found the following C.XIII images belonging to the Royal Manuscripts (Royal MS 2, D I, fol. 127 & 307:Universal History)

http://www.lamazadeplata.150m.com/portf ... 20trio.jpg
http://www.lamazadeplata.150m.com/portf ... archer.jpg

cheers,
monte.
James Arlen Gillaspie
Archive Member
Posts: 2097
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by James Arlen Gillaspie »

The point of my quotation of de Wavrin is this; prior to Agincourt, many of Henry V's archers were (armourwise) NAKED. Afterward, they were wearing the BEST FRENCH ARMOUR that was then available - a double blow to the French, not only to lose so many of their best warriors and equipment at once, but to find themselves facing that very equipment afterward. The appearance of the English forces literally changed OVERNIGHT. Get it?
User avatar
Jehan de Pelham
Archive Member
Posts: 11405
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Outremer
Contact:

Post by Jehan de Pelham »

Absolutely! Archers wore what they could get, and it is likely that vintenars and centenars were happy to see their men protected, even if it meant some irregularity in equipment between one man and another.

Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

Timothy_D_Finkas wrote:... Armor is also possible from a simple gambeson to mail to full plate...


Dave Womble wrote:...I dunno as if I'd say armour could include full plate, bascinets with aventails...thats decidedly NOT archer equipment..if you have that much armour, you're either a knight or high ranking man at arms attached to a noble house. Your fanny should be on a horse, not shooting a bow...


Timothy_D_Finkas wrote:...Period inconography tells a different story. Archers in full cap a pie armour are frequently depicted.


'nuff said?
Hugo T.
Archive Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Montreal

Post by Hugo T. »

While there are multiple depictions of fully-armored archers, we have to remember that those represent the archer bodyguards to a lord, not the rank'n'file.

Case in point: http://www.crc-internet.org/images/may2e.jpg

So for someone trying to impresonnate an archer of that period, I would personnaly go for a low armor profile, with jack and sallet preferably. That outfit would represent a fairly well-to-do archer, with maybe a plackart if you must have armor (such as in the martyrdom of St-Ursula; archer on the extreme left) http://www.abcgallery.com/M/memling/memling2.html

Hugo
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

100 years war.

depends on which part, early middle ir late.

Depends if you want to be a seasoned campaigner with all kinds fo justification for having weird and wonderful stuff.

But re archers and armour.

Archers - ie normal men expected to serve from 16-60 were the majority of the soldiery, ie a reflection of their economic status, in that the barest minimum of self-provided kit was a bow and some arrows. As your personal worth went up so did the arms and armour expectations, ie more arrows some harness (included jacks and metal). And up to a certain point provision of enough kit for other people to have.

So you have a choice from wearing just day to day clothing to forms of armour and more armour as the period went on. As long as your clothing reflects which part of the 100 years war that is half the battle won so to speak - <groans>


So ok you might be able to shoot in full plate, but question is would you? Considering that meant a worth that meant you had to not only provide other kit but other people too.

Even the Scottish Archer Guard are depicted in brigandines and some leg protection not full harness.

re gambeson - jack as far as I am aware the term jack is 14the century too, and didn't they merely reflect prevailing clothing styles? ie riding higher up and in some cases formed sleeves?

Training - other than the obligatory archery what was there, is there any evidence for English archers training in any other way in England?

Best of Luck Canterbury.
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

Timothy_D_Finkas wrote:
...Period inconography tells a different story. Archers in full cap a pie armour are frequently depicted.

not that simple Tim

Period iconography was often done by people who had never set foot near a battle field.

It was also prone to a lot of liberty taking and politics and embellishment, lots of images of people almost as big as the buildings they are attacking etc etc.

Some of the 15th C Froissart images show all kinds of things for artistic convenience such as showing archers whichever side they are on having their bow side to the reader. does that automatically mean one side was left handed the other right?

And I am not for one minute saying armour can't be used, but merely saying it was depicted is not the whole story, if the Scottish Archer guard, an elite body of men are merely having brigs, sallets and some poleyns why is full harness needed, because if anyone would have it they would.

And if lowly archer man has got himself a full harness does he ask his mates very kindly to 'do him up', are we assuming an immediate tendency to use something because it may be available?

regardos
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

I was merely supporting my earlier statement that a wide range of harness is referenced by both the iconography and written text, and within that wide range is full plate. In no way did I mean to suggest that full plate was the norm. Just that it seemed "possible" given the information that we have.

Tim
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

Okkar wrote:...So for someone trying to impresonnate an archer of that period, I would personnaly go for a low armor profile, with jack and sallet preferably. That outfit would represent a fairly well-to-do archer, with maybe a plackart if you must have armor (such as in the martyrdom of St-Ursula; archer on the extreme left) http://www.abcgallery.com/M/memling/memling2.html

Hugo


The Memling image is 50 years or so after the fall of Calais in 1453, and that's very late 100YW. I am very fond of the archer's look shown in the St. Ursala piece, but it seems more Wars of the Roses to me than Hundred Years War. Doncha think?

Tim
Locked