Some Rambling Thoughts on English Feudal Military Culture
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:48 am
Hey everyone, a friend of mine is getting interested in getting more into a 14th or 15th century portrayal of an esquire. He wanted some information so I just kinda rattled this off. Any input? Suggestions? Clarifications? The level of mudging it all together to provide the basic overview has undoubtedly forced errors also, so please don't be shy.
--------------------
Uilliam,
Reading is your friend and ally. And a powerful ally it is. Like The Force. It is by reading that you will obtain the knowledge base necessary to pull off a portrayal well, and more importantly, avoid being misled by merchants, many of whom don't know any better, or aren't interested in letting you know they're wrong--for example, were I better educated on medieval cloths, I would have bought my 14th century cotte (the one you got) in linen instead of silk noil, which wasn't used often if at all for rich clothing in the 14th century. So, the suggestion and the reason for it given, I move into the information:
Some Basic Overview: Lords, Knights, Esquires, Men-at Arms, Archers, and the Retinues they Make.
This will serve as just enough information to make you dangerous. The following terms were very fluid, particularly at the level between esquire and Archer, the nebulous "man at arms" or "serjeant" rank, and definition is very troublesome. There is some flow between the various terms we have here, so sometimes you will see a term used differently than I describe it here. Try and understand the context of the term in your reading.
Lords were great men in the middle ages. They were managers of tens of thousands of acres of land, and multiple villages, probably centered around a town of some minor importance. They are typically styled in this manner Lord (title of the seat of their power), so Lord Stafford, or Lord Percy. Lords were in between Barons and Knights in power, though the word Lord could and did mean any man of rank from Lord to King. The Great Lords (Barons, Earls, Counts, Dukes, and Kings), were another level of magnitude more powerful than even these great men, and it is fair to say that nobody in re-enactment doing it today could actually portray even a petty Lord. Men like Jeff Hedgecock (the Red Company) deign to portay esquires, because in their research, they have come to the conclusion that they just cannot re-create the richness of material culture required to do it proper justice. It would take a fortified manor house, and villages of recreators to do a Lord justice. It would probably be do-able by someone worth a couple of tens of millions. And I think it would be cool as hell to do--maybe we can sell the idea to a rich eccentric, and we could be his castellan or seneschals, or his house knights. Yeah!
Okay, snap back into reality...
The Knight was the lowest level of nobility in England. These were landowners, of less stature than Lords, but they had sufficient wealth to arm themselves and bring to bear the resources of their manors in terms of yeomen archers, and their household troop of squires and men at arms. Knights banneret were knights who led other knights...they were "super knights," in essence.
The basic premise is that everything which we think of a knight being, a man who was called an esquire was also, except, an esquire was not a knight, and was not paid as a knight, instead getting only half the pay of a knight. In many ways, esquires were preferable to the King, because they could perform roughly the same military duty for half the pay. Esquires were part of the group also called lances a cheval, or "horse soldiers." These were the lance wielders in the front rank, and were expected to fight from horseback, though they could also fight on foot. Sometimes you'll see the term serjeant, and the serjeant was a lance a pied, very similar to an esquire.
Men at arms were a step below esquires, and perhaps actually, seeing as neither of us are horse owners, nor are we likely to be horse owners, this level is more appropriate to our means. But in any case, men at arms were private citizens who could equip themselves with armor and horse sufficient to perform their duties as a lance a pied, a "foot soldier." The lances a pied fought primarily on foot, but they had palfreys which could carry them, and they were the support troops who assisted the lances a cheval in executing their mass lance charges. A lance charge is a ponderous thing, and it takes time to organize. After the initial pass, by the lances a cheval, against the foe, the lances a pied would ride along behind them, and guard their flank, while the lances a cheval regrouped for another devastating pass. If necessary, the lances a pied would dismount to fight the enemy's infantry, and then remount their palfreys to move with the lances a cheval. Sometimes you hear these types of soldiers called armati, hobilars, or bidowers, especially more early on.
What makes the term "man at arms" confusing, is that it was sometimes used to refer to esquires and Knights but not serjeants, but sometimes to refer specifically to armed soldiers beneath the rank of esquire. There are other terms out there like centenar, which you might have guessed, is the leader of a hundred, or vintenar, the leader of a twenty-man unit. Roll with the punches, bro. I do. I discover more every week, and my understanding of the various ranks and places grows a little every time.
Archers were utilized by Knights and Esquires, who acted as Captains (the term Captain could be adopted by virtually anyone, even a wealthy Man at Arms, I suppose), and were the primary body of troops organized into Free Companies in the late 14th century. This is the basic concept I use in thinking of how I fit into the Brotherhood--I think of the Brotherhood as a Free Company (not a mercenary group, the distinction is important, because Free Companies were loyal to their King, even though they were paid troops--mercenaries were a primarily Italian phenomena and were true sellswords--the condottieri are the classic example). They were freedmen: in England the yeoman farmer was expected to be a skilled archer and have a bow, a jack of linen, leather, mail or brigandine, and a steel cap, and a score of arrows, I believe. A different Osprey book which I have addresses these particulars. Arbelesters are a continental variation on the archer theme, these tended to be Flemish and were men hired by Captains and issued crossbows in some cases. They were given less regard, generally, than the yeomen longbowmen of England. The longbow was not adopted in France to the great detriment of the French at Crecy, and Najera, and Agincourt, and other battles in the Hundred Years War.
Retinues were composed of different amounts of these various ingredients, for example in the portion of Warrior 58 I am sending you, Lord Stafford's retinue in 1348 was composed of three bannerets, 16 knights, 31 esquires, and 50 archers--here I delve a little bit into what a Lord was, and put the Lord in its proper place above a knight, as opposed to where the SCA places them. In 1369 Lord Percy mustered one banneret, 12 knights, 47 esquires, and 100 archers. You can see here the tendency in later years to increase the ratio of archers to men at arms. The actual origins of the various components of medieval retinues is open to much discussion and debate--for example, in Lord Stafford's retinue, was each knight responsible for bringing, say, two esquires and two archers? Or were the archers all yeomen farmers from Lord Stafford's lands? Or some combination? Did some knights bring more squires and archers than others? What was the role of the bannerets in all of this? The answer is probably all kinds of answers, depending on the incredible array of feudal relationships that interlaced English personal politics in the 14th century.
In the book The White Company, we can see vivid descriptions of each of these four classes: Knight (Sir Nigel, Sir Oliver Buttesthorn, Sir John Chandos), Esquire (Alleyne Edricson, Squire Ford), Man-at Arms (Black Simon of Norwich), and Archers (Hordle John, Samkin Aylward), all in a Free Company (The White Company), and their role in a Medieval Army. They all interlock and work together as parts in a larger thing.
John
---------------------------------
Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus
EDITED to pull out some personal references that were irrelevant to the information.
--------------------
Uilliam,
Reading is your friend and ally. And a powerful ally it is. Like The Force. It is by reading that you will obtain the knowledge base necessary to pull off a portrayal well, and more importantly, avoid being misled by merchants, many of whom don't know any better, or aren't interested in letting you know they're wrong--for example, were I better educated on medieval cloths, I would have bought my 14th century cotte (the one you got) in linen instead of silk noil, which wasn't used often if at all for rich clothing in the 14th century. So, the suggestion and the reason for it given, I move into the information:
Some Basic Overview: Lords, Knights, Esquires, Men-at Arms, Archers, and the Retinues they Make.
This will serve as just enough information to make you dangerous. The following terms were very fluid, particularly at the level between esquire and Archer, the nebulous "man at arms" or "serjeant" rank, and definition is very troublesome. There is some flow between the various terms we have here, so sometimes you will see a term used differently than I describe it here. Try and understand the context of the term in your reading.
Lords were great men in the middle ages. They were managers of tens of thousands of acres of land, and multiple villages, probably centered around a town of some minor importance. They are typically styled in this manner Lord (title of the seat of their power), so Lord Stafford, or Lord Percy. Lords were in between Barons and Knights in power, though the word Lord could and did mean any man of rank from Lord to King. The Great Lords (Barons, Earls, Counts, Dukes, and Kings), were another level of magnitude more powerful than even these great men, and it is fair to say that nobody in re-enactment doing it today could actually portray even a petty Lord. Men like Jeff Hedgecock (the Red Company) deign to portay esquires, because in their research, they have come to the conclusion that they just cannot re-create the richness of material culture required to do it proper justice. It would take a fortified manor house, and villages of recreators to do a Lord justice. It would probably be do-able by someone worth a couple of tens of millions. And I think it would be cool as hell to do--maybe we can sell the idea to a rich eccentric, and we could be his castellan or seneschals, or his house knights. Yeah!
Okay, snap back into reality...
The Knight was the lowest level of nobility in England. These were landowners, of less stature than Lords, but they had sufficient wealth to arm themselves and bring to bear the resources of their manors in terms of yeomen archers, and their household troop of squires and men at arms. Knights banneret were knights who led other knights...they were "super knights," in essence.
The basic premise is that everything which we think of a knight being, a man who was called an esquire was also, except, an esquire was not a knight, and was not paid as a knight, instead getting only half the pay of a knight. In many ways, esquires were preferable to the King, because they could perform roughly the same military duty for half the pay. Esquires were part of the group also called lances a cheval, or "horse soldiers." These were the lance wielders in the front rank, and were expected to fight from horseback, though they could also fight on foot. Sometimes you'll see the term serjeant, and the serjeant was a lance a pied, very similar to an esquire.
Men at arms were a step below esquires, and perhaps actually, seeing as neither of us are horse owners, nor are we likely to be horse owners, this level is more appropriate to our means. But in any case, men at arms were private citizens who could equip themselves with armor and horse sufficient to perform their duties as a lance a pied, a "foot soldier." The lances a pied fought primarily on foot, but they had palfreys which could carry them, and they were the support troops who assisted the lances a cheval in executing their mass lance charges. A lance charge is a ponderous thing, and it takes time to organize. After the initial pass, by the lances a cheval, against the foe, the lances a pied would ride along behind them, and guard their flank, while the lances a cheval regrouped for another devastating pass. If necessary, the lances a pied would dismount to fight the enemy's infantry, and then remount their palfreys to move with the lances a cheval. Sometimes you hear these types of soldiers called armati, hobilars, or bidowers, especially more early on.
What makes the term "man at arms" confusing, is that it was sometimes used to refer to esquires and Knights but not serjeants, but sometimes to refer specifically to armed soldiers beneath the rank of esquire. There are other terms out there like centenar, which you might have guessed, is the leader of a hundred, or vintenar, the leader of a twenty-man unit. Roll with the punches, bro. I do. I discover more every week, and my understanding of the various ranks and places grows a little every time.
Archers were utilized by Knights and Esquires, who acted as Captains (the term Captain could be adopted by virtually anyone, even a wealthy Man at Arms, I suppose), and were the primary body of troops organized into Free Companies in the late 14th century. This is the basic concept I use in thinking of how I fit into the Brotherhood--I think of the Brotherhood as a Free Company (not a mercenary group, the distinction is important, because Free Companies were loyal to their King, even though they were paid troops--mercenaries were a primarily Italian phenomena and were true sellswords--the condottieri are the classic example). They were freedmen: in England the yeoman farmer was expected to be a skilled archer and have a bow, a jack of linen, leather, mail or brigandine, and a steel cap, and a score of arrows, I believe. A different Osprey book which I have addresses these particulars. Arbelesters are a continental variation on the archer theme, these tended to be Flemish and were men hired by Captains and issued crossbows in some cases. They were given less regard, generally, than the yeomen longbowmen of England. The longbow was not adopted in France to the great detriment of the French at Crecy, and Najera, and Agincourt, and other battles in the Hundred Years War.
Retinues were composed of different amounts of these various ingredients, for example in the portion of Warrior 58 I am sending you, Lord Stafford's retinue in 1348 was composed of three bannerets, 16 knights, 31 esquires, and 50 archers--here I delve a little bit into what a Lord was, and put the Lord in its proper place above a knight, as opposed to where the SCA places them. In 1369 Lord Percy mustered one banneret, 12 knights, 47 esquires, and 100 archers. You can see here the tendency in later years to increase the ratio of archers to men at arms. The actual origins of the various components of medieval retinues is open to much discussion and debate--for example, in Lord Stafford's retinue, was each knight responsible for bringing, say, two esquires and two archers? Or were the archers all yeomen farmers from Lord Stafford's lands? Or some combination? Did some knights bring more squires and archers than others? What was the role of the bannerets in all of this? The answer is probably all kinds of answers, depending on the incredible array of feudal relationships that interlaced English personal politics in the 14th century.
In the book The White Company, we can see vivid descriptions of each of these four classes: Knight (Sir Nigel, Sir Oliver Buttesthorn, Sir John Chandos), Esquire (Alleyne Edricson, Squire Ford), Man-at Arms (Black Simon of Norwich), and Archers (Hordle John, Samkin Aylward), all in a Free Company (The White Company), and their role in a Medieval Army. They all interlock and work together as parts in a larger thing.
John
---------------------------------
Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus
EDITED to pull out some personal references that were irrelevant to the information.