Postby s_taillebois » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:11 pm
M. Goranov,
Getting the size of late medieval armies can be problematic due to the poor records kept at the time, and the tendency to inflate the numbers after great defeats or great victories. Plus simple corruption was involved as those on the muster roles (men at arms, knights, archers, farriers, carters and etc) were often inflated to get more money from the King's treasury.
Henry 5ths army at Agincourt was about 6,000 men. There had been losses due to the preceding battles and disease. Of that 6,000 the predominant number were archers, levees, Welsh dagger men and such. The usual estimates are about 5,000 of the archers and etc and the remaining being men at arms or knights.
In the English system weapons were brought to the muster by leaders and their followers, not generally supplied through national armories. If a leader and his retinue were affluent they had better kit. Very indicative of this condition is the old English battle cry of "Bills and Bows". An affluent knight may have been able to buy Italian armor or a Spanish sword, but for many the production of these items was a local matter. That's one of the reasons medieval lords tended to be so restrictive about cutting timber or grazing, they needed such resources for the production of weapons and stock.
Henry's army was a bit skewed towards the yeomanry because the English crown had already over spent on the French campaign and archers and like troops were cheaper. In the case of the English Chevelchee (sp) fairly few civilians were with his armies because he was in hostile country and the French were following a burnt earth policy. The English do have surviving muster roles from that campaign and if you can access British research sites that might give a much clearer documentation.
In other contexts, movies not withstanding the usual practice at sieges was to boot the common people out of fortifications, often they ended up in the no mans land between the armies. Often starving and kept away from supplies by both combatants.
An exception would be the crusade era armies, who had substantial followers of non combatants. But as much as possible the professional fighters tended to travel separately from the mobs. For example Peter the hermits followers were massacred because they moved separately and had started earlier from the armies of such as Bohemond (who because of attitudes of the era, and pragmatic needs wanted little to do with Peter's mob)
As far as large armies per se these were fielded, but during exceptional circumstances. The Lancastrian forces at Towton probably numbered about 40,000 and the Yorkist possessed a somewhat smaller number.
The usual attitude of the peasantry about these armies was they feared them, friendly troops would appropriate supplies and enemies would ravage entire communities. Chivalry did not apply to what were considered 'men of no value'.
In general for the common people they supported armies when it was to their profit, which often was a English condition it wasn't as common with the French. A good example would be Henry 5th's or Edwards yeomanry-they went on campaign as an obligation but supported such activities because the looting could be profitable. (For example to the end of the 100 years war the English had problems recruiting longbow men, feudal obligations notwithstanding, because they increasingly perceived it as slaughter without benefit.
The other times of substantial common support would be those rare occasions when an exceptional leader such as Pope Urban or Joan of Arc appeared. Although at some times this got a bit bizarre, one group of commoners during the first crusade followed a goose.
Steven Taillebois
sounds someone needs to lay of the ale
