Maybe a question with a simple answer, but I'll aks anyway:

In the most of the books I've read so far, the English force is listed with numbers fro archers (and sometimes break this number into mounted and foot archers) and Men-at-arms. No mention of other ifantry types. Pay amounts are listed in detail, but again, no other infantry.

Where are these guys? Surely they were there, why aren't they listed in these sources?

For more information on this in the period of the WOR go to the Company of Saint George's mailing list archive to July 03 and read the threads on military organization. Dave Key goes into it alot. While I think he's right that no soldiers in the WOR were intended to be billmen I don't think the armies in the battles of the WOR were well supplied with arrows.

In looking at armies organised by the crown during the 15th century, spears (mounted men at arms) and bows are all that are tallied amongst normal combatants - there are no billmen.

That said, in looking at things like the Bridgenorth muster roll, there are in some towns citizens who turn out armed with bills but not bows - these are not part of any regular muster of troops, nor riding retinues of households (the professional troops).

The idea sometimes espoused is that bills were sometimes issued to bowmen, to use in combat as battles closed to hand to hand combat.

Billmen appear in early 16th century Tudor accounts, but not prior to then.

--------------------

I've just read the whole discussion over at the CoSG site and below... learn something new every day!

<edited after reading other threads in detail>

Strongbow

I just read many of your posts below too... good stuff. I'm now totally re-thinking my image of 14th-15th century English armies. This list has taught me more in the last year than I ever dreamed... thanks to you and the other great folks here.

When looking at the Bridport Muster roll (as published in the Royal Armouries Year Book 2 and to a lesser degree as written) you have to bear in mind that this is probably (and I'd stress probably here as I'm still looking at the towns records to get a clearer picture) not a record of the equipment that would ultimately be available to the defenders of the town, but rather the equipment (and financial ... alot of the financial details are missing from the published version) obligations that were required from those members of the town who owed it.
Not everyone in the town was expected to provide manpower or equipment. The actual detail about what was required according to your degree/status/wealth is not as clear cut as could be desired. Documents refers to such obligations in very general terms ... "according to their degree", "as a knight should" etc. Only occasionally is the detail more precise ... as in Coventry where your role (or past role) within the City administration dictated how much equipment was required.

The Bridport roll does have some semblance of this structure and also of the subdivision of the list into sections, possibly by landlord, possibly by officer but it's hard to make out as published.

So the Bridport roll is a starting point rather than a conclusion. To use an old saying ... it asks as many questions as it answers.

Additionally what this roll does not show is how much additional equipment was being stored, or acquired by, the town itself. This is a tricky subject. By rights if the town had a central armoury there should be evidence of it ... either as purchases or lists of town property. In Calais there are accounts listing every piece of military equipment required to wage war ... from bows and arrows to bills to assault ladders to helmets.

However in Southampton (just down the coast from Bridport) whilst there are lists of the ordnance and associated paraphanalia, I can't recall any similar listing of arrows or armour. So far I haven't found it in Bridport either. So whether it was there is open to question, certainly it's not a clear cut answer.

Another consideration is that town defenders are not in-the-field campaign soldiers. Coventry provides the best illustration of this where both the City watch and soldiers supplied for campaign received Sallet and Jack ... but the Watch were isued with glaives and poleaxes whilst the Soldiers were issued with Bows and arrows.

This would make some sense ... Hand weapons for Watch & Ward, Bows for war. There are plenty of references to archers with lead mauls etc. which would be far more practical to carry alongside a bow and these also appear in the 1475 Indentures.

If we look at the 'expected' proportion of archers to men at arms you'd expect to see a bill/poleaxe armed man listed for every 3 who aren't ... and you'd expect these to be more likely supplied (as they're better paid) than the archers ... possibly explaining the massive purchase of Bows and arrows and their significant reduction in numbers by the time they were returned to Calais.

When someone can show me evidence of equipping archers for battle (rather than watch & ward) with bills I'll believe it ... but 'til then ...

Also the emphasis on the supply of arrows (and bows) by the King is emphasised by the presence of specific officers dedicated to these tools (none explicitly exists for bills) but the repeated listing in the Patent Rolls of purchases of all manner of war gear suggests that for the major campaigns at least the soldiers were as well equipped as any English/British army ever is (which is not necessarily saying alot!!)

Of the 298 men listed as being in the retinue, 100 have their arms detailed, and 46 are listed as having "bylls". 47 have "bowes", one has a spear, and the remaining 6 have either a bowe or byll (doesn't specifically say).

I'll admit that this is the only document that I have seen with this in it, and that prior to being shown it I was in agreement that billmen didn't show up until the 16th C (when plenty of must lists survive).

C d C I mentioned (ok I whinged about it) a while back that UK WOTR has too few archers and too many shiny harness wearers and 'bill men'.

A recent discussion on the LH forum touched on the notion of 'many professional' bill men, something I find hard to credit given the condition of conflict over such a long period.

I look forward to your further information Dave, keep it up.

However, and call me a cynic but within reenactment there are certain traditions, and I suspect that breaking the 'bill line' mindset wil be a big challenge.

The reason being I suspect it is easier to have lines of bills and is a one off payment, ie bills don't break with the regularity that arrows do.

And for some reason it is perceived that archers didn't fight, well if they made up to 80% of any given force what were they doing when the arrows ran out, filed their nails just watching the 'billmen' get stuck in?

But I am biased aren't I Dave,? as I was an archer captain for a few years.

thanks

--------------------

Any progress on the source for your Muster ? Even a vague pointer if you haven't the exact text would help.

What I've found in past research is that there is often confusion between the 'men with bills' and the modern usage of 'billman'. It is entirely possible that the 'men with bills' are what would usually be termed 'men-at-arms'.

An example of how this confusion can occur is the Ewelme Half-hundred which is only partially listed in the Stonor Papers translation. Here men with bills and staffs appear, but so do the bows, and if you 'assume' (and it is a risky assumption I'd agree and one which deserves more explanation than I have time for here I'm afraid) that those with nothing were issued with bows ... and the supply accounts for the artillery do tend to suggest this is possible ... then the proportion of men with pole arms to bows is (from memory) about 1:3 ... which is the ideal target ratio during the occupation period in Normandy in the 1420's and into the 1440's. Yet nowhere in the Ewleme half hundred are men-at-arms mentioned.

This in itself raises an interesting question. Much of the focus of the late C15th-ealry C16th military research has concentrated on the decline of the archer ... maybe the question is more ... how did the man-at-arms become the billman, and why ... or have we been too focused on the noble end of the men-at-arms to really understand their role and capabilities? All of this links into the changing nature of English military ... the use of cavalry etc etc. A fascinating topic

(Don't forget the source ... I'd be VERY interested)

Sorry for the delay in replying.

The document in question is a indenture of retainer between Sir Walter Strykeland of Sizergh in Cumbria and the Earl of Salisbury. It's dated 1449, and apparently both portions remain - one in the National Archives (although I've yet to find it) and one in Sizergh Castle in Cumbria (currently inhabited by the Strickland familly and in the care of the National Trust). The indenture also contains a muster list of men and equipment that Strykeland was to provide as part of his obligations on the Western March of the Scottish Border.

It lists men from various villages (most of which still exist) that were present at the muster, and the equipment that was present, as well as whether they were horsed or not. It seems to be split into two main geographical areas indicating that he had inherited his lands as a result of a marriage inheritance somewhere along the line.

The text itself was taken from an early 18th C transcription of the document which was then re-printed. I believe it to be accurate as the indenture part of the document has turned up in a book a friend has of indentures that was printed by the Camden record society, and they match. I know, I haven't seen the original but I am looking but as yet haven't turned anything up.

The text as it is printed looks pretty OK to me. There are 100 men with equipment listed, and reference to another 191, to give a retinue of 291.

I believe Vicky spoke to you regarding another muster list that I was looking at getting copied, Somerset's from 1449? Well I've got it now and it is as you suggested a list of names. 4,500 of them which is impressive, but names and no equipment nonetheless.

If you want to chat more I have your e-mail address from Vicky, don't really want to publish mine on a public board. Just let me know and I'll send you a mail.

Stevenson, J. (ed.)
Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France During the Reign of Henry the Sixth
(London, Longman, 1861-1864)
(Rolls Series No. 22)

Public Records Office ...

E 210/4977
Walter son and heir of Thomas Stykland, knight to Richard, Earl of Salisbury: Indenture of military service.
27 Hen. VI.

Records of the Exchequer
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Ancient Deeds, Series D

Got both on order (been meaning to get the Letter Illustrative ..." book for ages ... probably take a couple of weeks to come through... I'll keep those interested posted.

Thanks Mike for sending me some of the details ... I'd be interested in seeing your article on the subject.

1st by locale (Household then village)
-- 2nd by horsed/foot
---- 3rd by whether they have bowe or bill
finally there is a total

"The hole noumber :
Bowmen horsyd and harnessed, lxix
Bylmen horsyd and harnessed, lxxiiij
Bowmen without hors harnasse, lxxj
Bylmen without hors harnasse, lxxvj"

Couple of thoughts on this summary ... only reference to "Bylmen" ... elsewhere the item is just listed by type (e.g. Edward Ayray, a byll.") and is in contrast to "Bowmen" ... itself an unusual terminology since "archer" would be more usual. So "Bylmen" simply means men with "Bylls" as opposed to men with "Bowes" and is not different to "speres" and "men-at-arms" vs "soldiers" and "archers" ... so no different subdivision within the footmen.

Second the ratios are about 1:1 "a Cheval" vs "a pied" (as English musters in France called them) and about "1:1" Byl vs Bow (rather than the "ideal" of 1:3 or the 1475 1:8)... but every indenture shows different proportions. The ratio may be a reflection of the region or a difference between urban vs country ???? ... all things that need to be considered and analysed ... but which hasn't been done yet ...

Still interesting and certainly worth looking at and worth following up on some of the ideas it has sparked off in my little head ... (this is why nothing I ever do gets finished you realise!

Private Indentures for Life Service in Peace and War 1278-1476
ed, M Jones and S Walker
Camdem Miscellany XXXII
Page 158-9

This in-turn x-references

The History of the Counties of Westmorland and Cumberland
ed. J Nicolson and R. Burn
(London 1777) i, 97-8

I have part of this somewhere ... what's the betting it's not the pages I need! I know this did have some ordinances for fighting on the borders.

I'll try and dig out my notes and if not reorder the whole volume

Cheers
Dave

Have you got a link for the Rolls Series then ? I've not used Gallica.

They come up in both civil and royal documents. An example off the cuff for civil is in a 1488 muster review in Southampton's Book of Fines for the period (Trns. C. Butler) includes a listing of billmen. Further down the list it seems clear that most of these men were in harness, though as noted above not full harness.

Some people have assumed they were lumped in with archers and for this we do not see them in many accounts but I do not think this is right as many of the civil and royal accounts list both billmen and archers at the same time.

Now in the 15th something that comes up very often in royal commands for men, both to individuals, towns, counties, etc. are calls for armed men. Simply put they seem to be men intended to fight on foot (though some get mounted for transport). To me this is likely where the billmen are hidden in Royal accounts. While I have not compiled a listing of all the soldiers called to arms in the Close Rolls and Patent Rolls (only Soton, York and London), these are likely right after archers in frequency of calls as well as the time frame employed from at least Henry III to Henry VII (I stopped reading early in Mary's reign so maybe longer).

To me billmen likely existed in some large numbers as often in reviews for knights and community forces bills and harness make up a large number of the weapons.