English men at arms fought as heavy infantry, or rather not all men at arms were cavalry, it seems to be that they could do either and the use changed as tactical necessity dictated (stand in front of the archers with a poleax or bill and stop them getting killed appears to have been a fairly common use) I do not know how common it was in other nations to fight that way however, and if they did what they used as weapons.
They where trained to fight mounted and had the horses for it.
It was required for them to be hired in the first place…
Obviously as a campaign progressed the loss of horses was a real issue.
+ThomasAagaard Not just “peasant levies”… Even the warrior elite used polearms extensively in ALL periods. Even at the height of plate armor, knights preferred the poleaxe by a wide margin, the two handed sword was a BACKUP weapon. And the English archon79 referred to were known for dismounting and fighting on foot.
I mean they rode to the battlefield, got off the horses. picked up pole weapons and fought on foot.
That’s exactly what they did. He’s spreading the common myth that only “rich nobles” had swords, and only “poor peasants” had spears. Meanwhile there’s abundant evidence that nearly every elite warrior cast around the world used spears, from Norman nights to Japanese Samurai.
swords were expensive, but survive a battle and you can pick one up :p. Also look at all the laws that had to be passed about non-nobles not walking about with swords, that it has to have been an issue,
At certain time periods and regions, even peasants could afford a basic arming sword or later side sword. Cheap swords were definitely available, and where they were banned, we get hilarious workarounds like the messer in Germany.
not really convinced the messer was a workaround, rather than simpler and cheaper to make, sword hilt construction is pretty complicated, full tang knife hilt not so much. Nobles and bailiffs not being complete idiots a 3ft sharp steel bar is a sword, no matter how they make the hilt.
Actually you’re right, looking into it more it appears that was a common misconception. In actual fact, civilians could not only own swords in Germany in that period, it was even required in some localities that all burghers have them, to the point where you could face punishment for “not being honorably armed”.
good find. It just didn’t make sense that the definition of sword concentrated on the hilt construction not the killy bit. (That’s the proper term right? :P)
Shadiversity actually has a good video series on the origins of the falchion and messer. He mentions the book i got that quote from, where a burgher was actually penalized for not being armed with a sword. Matt Easton has a good video on sword costs too, where he mentions some swords could be had for roughly the cost of a chicken.
I remember that Matt Easton video, his channel in general is very interesting,.
And deprive themselves of heavy calvary?
yes. not all of it, but they relied far more on massed infantry defending blocks of archers (to the extent that the majority of the army was archers) for instance at Crecy the estimate is 7000 bowmen, 2500 men at arms, 3000 Heoblers (including possibly some mounted archers, the use of which had been demonstrated at the battle of the Golden Spurs, as had the ability of Infantry and archers properly equipped to defeat cavalry) and 3000 spear infantry, they used terrain to restrict the French army, which was allegedly far larger, and used the archers to kill the horses and harass the men of the cavalry, while the men at arms and spear men stood off the charges with what amounted to early pick blocks Edward having ordered his men at arms to fight on foot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crécy#cite_note-elfinspell.com-41
Well that is one example. Agincourt, the English were horribly outnumbered and wise enough not to use heavy Calvary in the mud.
But if you want examples of the English using heavy calvary to win battles, look at Arsuf during the third crusade. You post seemed to imply the English didn’t really use heavy Calvary ever.
wasn’t my intent, sorry I meant to show that they used dismounted men at arms on a large scale and repeatedly.
so many myths… and people not reading what is written.
By the late medieval period swords was not that expensive and it was common for the merchant class to train and wear sword and bucklers or messers. And most soldiers would carry one.
From at least the mid 11th century the sword was the standard arm for most processional soldiers.
Sure, depending on the exact social status and military function they could and did use other arms.
but that don’t change the fact that for the cavalry, that is the men-at-arms, swords was the typical weapon for a few hundred years… Yes they used lances, but that is usually only good for one enemy.
One reason is that a sword is usefull in both battles and skirmishes, against an armored and unarmored opponent.
Where a spear is more useful in a battle… if fighting on foot. something that was in many areas not something the men-at-arms liked to do.
Then when full plate armour become common, obviously arms to deal with it is developed and is used. Again, when fighting on foot. But this is after a period of 2-300 years where the sword was the standard weapon.
Some mention the “english”. Henry V basically only hired 3 types of solders.
Some light Welsh cavalry for scouting.
Men at arms, that is men who are trained and equipped to fight on horseback, but can just as well fight as heavy infantry. And did fight mounted just as they did fight on foot.
(patrols, raiding and skirmishing was how most of the fighting was done. real battles was pretty rare)
And in some cases part of the men-at-arms was mounted and part where on foot.
And yes, by this time, most men-at-arms would likely be using some sort of polaxe as his main weapon… when on foot.
and his Archers.
oh, and mentioning the samurai in a debate about medieval Europe is as relevant as bringing up jediknights.
Consider that most battles were not field battles, but siege battles where Calvary would be less useful. I don’t think anyone is implying the english never used them on horseback, just that they were particularly well known for dismounting and fighting on foot.
You seem to be confusing “lance” as meaning only a couched lance, when it could refer to a spear of suitable length to be used on foot in a judicial duel (as a number of martial treatises show).
The sword was the standard SIDE ARM of most professional soldiers. During the 11th century, from the Eastern Roman Empire (byzantines) to the Franks, you would find men of all classes fighting on foot with spears (a type of polearm) and shields, with a sword AT THEIR SIDE. In the early modern period, you would still be facing men with polearms as primary weapons, with the vast majority of swords STILL functioning as sidearms.
Thats like asking if the toyota is the standard car
1 Like