How were real medieval armies composed?

[Amon_Zeth]

In MTW, the general strain of composition of armies has been kind of like rock-paper-scissors, with melee infantry beating spear infantry, spear infantry beating cavalry, and cavalry beating melee infantry. But from what I've read, this isn't true- rather, apparently most infantry carried spears with them as well as some kind of close-range melee weapon like a sword or mace. Is this true? And how did halberdiers, two-handed swordsmen, and other non-spear infantry fit into the real-life equation of medieval armies? I'm guessing that mass gave them some advantage, but wouldn't spears be better, since they can keep attackers from a frontal attack, both on foot and on horseback?

[shifty157]

Spears were fine for the initial engagement but once the general melee started and there wasnt much room to move around the length of a spear became more of a liability than an asset. Of course the really nice thing spears is that theyre very easy to use (requiring little if any training) while still being reasonably effective. They were also incredibly cheap to make compared to other weapons. Thats why you mostly see peasants and militias with spears.

Ultimately the fact that were rather unwieldy in a packed melee meant that if you wanted to be effective on the battlefield you would need a shorter weapon that you could swing. These weapons however could be considerably expensive and required training and practice to use them well. The sword was a good general purpose weapon that could hack, slice, and stab. It gave the weilder alot of tactical options for attacking. Its reasonable weight also allowed it to be effective against armor. As the middle ages went on the swords generally became larger and heavier partly to be more effective from horseback and partly to be more effective against the stronger armor.

Axes were very effective because they're weight allowed them to pierce armor relatively easily. But since they could only be used in a hacking swing combined with their great weight meant they were rather slow weapons and therefore not entirely ideal.

Maces were often considered the best weapons to use in a melee because they were very quick compared to axes. Since they reallied on blunt force they didnt need to pierce armor at all but could still easily break the bones benieth the armor. Many types of armor were quite useless against a mace.


Also in the middle ages youll find combination weapons such as the halberd that are several different weapons mixed into one so that you could theoretically pick and choose which to use in a given situation. The halberd for example combined the spear and the axe so that soldiers could use the spear for its reach and its stopping power and then in the melee could use the axe portion to deal devastating blows. Billmen combined the mace with the spear. Polearms combined the sword with the spear.

[Watchman]

Spears aren't as important for repelling cavalry as presenting a strong solid front to the horses. Although since the cavalrymen can just walk the beasts onto you if necessary and themselves tend to carry long pointy things to skewer others with, having something that can kill the horse and/or the rider at an arm's leght is obviously useful. Spears were the mainstay for the job since ancient times, but once armour reached the point where shields began to be discarded (both as somewhat superfluous, and because getting through the other guy's protective gear increasingly required heavier two-handed ironmongery) a bewildering variety of two-handed polearms took its place. Most of those were both "choppy" and "stabby" the way halberds are, and very effective all-around killers.

And everyone carried backup weapons. Preferably several. Peasant levy slingers would have knives. Cavalrymen occasionally hung small arsenals from their saddles, as if the spears or lances they carried in their hands and the swords fastened to their belts (many "Eastern" troops would also add a composite bow, arrow quiver and probably a couple of spare unstrung bows to that) weren't enough. Spearmen and polearms men had swords, axes, maces, whatever. Ditto for archers and other missile troops. Aside from a very sensible worry over the initial wepaon breaking in the crush of battle, various weapons were also carried to complement each other. A three-meter spear isn't much good for shield-to-shield fighting where you can try to bite the other guy's nose off, but a short sword is - but it's not that good for checking a cavalry charge (although determined and skilled infantry could cause cavalry no end of hurt in a melee with such weapons). A sabre sucks against heavy armour, but a mace will bust through it with ease - but is conversely ill suited to fighting nimble, lightly equipped foes. Spears and lances are good all-around weapons, both for and against cavalry and infantry, but their wooden shafts are vulnerable to breakage and enemy blows and they tend to get unwieldy at shorter ranges. Missile weapons kill at range, but aren't too useful up close - although many "settled" horse-archers were trained to use their composite bows as shock weapons too.

And so on.

[Aracnid]

Also, with a few exceptions your average medieval army would be very mixed. If it was a fuedal levy army than in the same "battle" (battalion to division) you would have peasants with knives and sharpened sticks fighting alongside well armed soldiers with armour, swords, halbers etc. Also here was no such thing as "Standard Issue", you would use what ever your lord gives you or you buy/scrounge for your self. Apart from the most powerful Dukes/Counts/Princes etc. fuedal levy of more than 20 men would be very rare. Your average knight would be lucky to be able to muster more than 10 men.

[Watchman]

*twitch*
...huh ?

[spong]

Are we sitting comfortably?

Alot of infantry did indeed carry backup weapons, mostly knives of varying lengths, some carried falchions, English archers carried mauls (often knives too) as a multipurpose tool for driving stakes and breaking up earth and as a weapon against armoured opponents (technically they didn't carry 'swords' even though they carried what could effectively be used as a sword ie: falchions and long knives, because swords were the weapon of knights, the nobles wouldn't have allowed a commoner to carry such a weapon nor would a soldier not encased in heavier armour encumber himself with such a weapon). Its a common misconception that infantry becomes utterly innefective when confronted with cavalry and without spears or once the cavalry has broken through a wall of spears, accounts suggest that infantry with long daggers and the like would harrass the horses and cause alot of disruption, unhorsed men could then be stabbed on the ground through gaps in their plate armour (if they were rich enough to own some, it wasn't as common as people think), the Welsh and Irish spearmen were known for their ability to damage cavalry with spear and knife.

Halberdiers and Billmen were used in much the same way as spearmen because both weapons had a thrusting point, their particular advantage was that they were still effective against armour without using the force of a charging mounted man against himself because of their heavy chopping blades and rear-facing spikes, again these troops would likely have carried backup weapons, images of billmen often show them with a buckler and small sword attatched to the belt by leather thongs. Bills also had the advantage against cavalrymen because of their curved hooks which could unseat a rider, they were also used against foot troops to hook behind a leg.

Two-handed swords were often used by dismounted knights, and they, like poleaxes were intended for breaking plate armour when it was more common during the later medieval period. I'm unfamiliar with the 'Zwei - Hander' soldiers of the HRE historically, although I do know that the Landschnekt mercenaries did employ men with zweihanders known as Doppelsoldners (double-pay-men) who were payed double for the risky job of assaulting pike formations. This illustrates the fact that while zweihanders were useful for breaking up enemy formations they were still vulnerable against pikes, as most things were by the end of the fifteenth century. After a certain stage pikes pretty much dominated the battlefield because of the successes of the Swiss and Landschnekts.

Its important to remember that alot of non-missile infantry (and alot of missile, in fact) in medieval armies was either dismounted men-at-arms (knights,squires,sergeants) or professional mercenaries. In the case of dismounted men this means that to some extent the cavalry and infantry arms are the same men and deploy differently depending on circumstances, at Agincourt the dismounted French knights are reported to have broken off sizx feet of their lances to use as a polearm and this occuring there and likely at other places lead to the development of weapons for use by dismounted knights such as the poleaxe.

Missile weapons were most effective against anyone wearing armour 'below' plate in terms of its protective qualities and many melee weapons evolved out of a need to counter cavalry and infantry as well as break heavier armour, hence the evolution of the bill, poleaxe, zweihander, halberd, mace and warhammer, axes were also used. Knives and estocs (thrusting swords) were used for stabbing between gaps and visors.
Non-spear infantry fits in because it could be kept to the rear or flanks of spear or pike formations and engage when necessary, cavalry often also operated in this manner.

That ended up kinda meandering all over the place because I lost my train of thought but I hope that helps a bit. If anyone could add to clarify a few things that would be cool.

[econ21]

In MTW, the general strain of composition of armies has been kind of like rock-paper-scissors, with melee infantry beating spear infantry, spear infantry beating cavalry, and cavalry beating melee infantry. But from what I've read, this isn't true- rather, apparently most infantry carried spears with them as well as some kind of close-range melee weapon like a sword or mace. Is this true?

That's my perception. I suspect that by and large most medievel combat units were not characterised by, or standardised in terms of, their weapons until towards the end of the period. I have not found any clear examples of non-spear Catholic melee infantry units in the early medieval period. As I will explain, I think the rise of standardised non-spear melee infantry came about partly in response to technology (especially the introduction of plate and the pike). But it is also surely not a coincidence that greater standardisation of weapons happened when armies were getting less feudal and more professional. (In an earlier age, compare the weapon standardisation of a professional legion with a warband, for example.)

And how did halberdiers, two-handed swordsmen, and other non-spear infantry fit into the real-life equation of medieval armies? I'm guessing that mass gave them some advantage, but wouldn't spears be better, since they can keep attackers from a frontal attack, both on foot and on horseback?

I think these units were partly a response to the introduction of plate - halberds in particular seem to have been the weapon of choice in close combat in the War of the Roses, for example. A spear is not that useful against a man in full or half plate, but a halberd or two hand sword could bash through helmets or armour limbs etc. The halberd also had similar stand-off properties to the spear, but inferior to the pike obviously.

I think the two handed sword was less common than the halberd and the units I have heard of which specialised in it seem to have been a response to the pike. A unit of "zweihanders" or halberdiers hacking into the flank of a pike would have been devastating. The phalanxes would also tend to use such weapons to protect their flanks. The sword and buckler men were similarly designed, although contrary to their depiction in M2TW, I gather they did not always beat the pikemen.

[monkian]

Im pretty sure at least half of English armies of this time were made up of Longbow men.

[Duke John]

During the HYW it was two-thirds. The ratio became 2:1 during the Wars of the Roses as the pool of trained archers got smaller because of casualities.

halberds in particular seem to have been the weapon of choice in close combat in the War of the Roses, for example.

The halberd was primarily a continental weapon. Standard infantry used billhooks, while men-at-arms tended to use pollaxes.

Maces were often considered the best weapons to use in a melee because they were very quick compared to axes. Since they reallied on blunt force they didnt need to pierce armor at all but could still easily break the bones benieth the armor.

Most maces had flanges (those pointed metal strips) along their sides or spikes allowing them to pierce armour. More easily used than a warhammer as it doesn't matter that much what the orientation of the mace is because it had quite a few of those pointy bits.

And how did halberdiers, two-handed swordsmen, and other non-spear infantry fit into the real-life equation of medieval armies?

Halberds/bills/pollaxes are multi-purpose spears. They can be used in a stab attack but also for slash, pierce, blunt (pollaxe) and grappling (halberd/bill) attacks. They were superior to spears when armour gave the soldier enough protection to be able to dismiss the cumbersome shield.

[Ringeck]

Distinguishing overly between cutting infantry spears/bills/halberds/glaives/voulges/great axes etc is probably overanalytical; shaft length was likely the only real difference. Most of these cutting polearms performed very similar functions: "long" distance armour penetration as a result of powerful cutting blows, or a broad thrusting edge against lightly armoured opponents. Cutting spears (whose blades can often be the size of 12th century glaive blades) were around since the very beginning of the middle ages - some viking spearhead finds are true monsters, 30cm + long-bladed and 10-15cm broad, with long, cutting edges. Thrusting spears and pikes fulfill many of the same functions but emphasise the distance over the penetration, and can also be used in conjunction with shields. Everything seems to indicate that many different varieties of polerams were mixed in a battle line - norse, flemish and iberian sources speak of long spears wielded two-handed intermixed with shield-and-spear troops. Levied troops seem to have had at least spears - even peasant rebels got hold of proper weapons. Many infantrymen seems to have carried javelins as well.

Swords and short axes were probably mainly back-up weapons, for infantry and cavalry both, more suitable to the situation where formations had become broken and it was possible to get close without being skewered on a mass of spearpoints or cutting polearms on the way in. True two-handed swords are very rare - mainly, they are post-medieval (the Zweihander is more popular in the 16th century than in the 15th, where few examples can be found) - but late medieval men-at-arms would often carry a longsword (also known as bastard or hand-and-a-half sword) as a backup weapon. Short armor breakers like pole axes seem to have been more common for single combat or after/if the formation broke than as battleline arms.

Written sources and illustrations alike seem to indicate that there was, indeed, common to separate the professional soldiers and the mustered troops - with the muster typically being given the jobs that required less sophistication; they could be put in dangerous positions (or as bait) but were not usually required to manouver much, whereas the professionals did the tactical movement. Some exeptions can be found - especially during civil wars or in other wars were mustered troops were brought out in great quantities - where the professional, armoured soldiers form up with the light-armed, often in the front ranks, while the light-armed wield spears or missiles through their protectors.

Scandinavian (regional law codes such as the Landslov) and english high medieval (like the Assizes of Arms) sources typically require the levy to equip either as archers or as infantry with a minimum equipment of shield and spear (preferably several) plus some sort of sidearm - axe or sword is mentioned in the norwegian levy sources, whereas the english are required to bring swords - and then equip themselves with armour (helmets first, then body armour), whereas the professional infantry (be they dismounted cavalry or professional footmen like the scandinavian hirdman or mercenary foot) seem to have been expected to armour themselves to good standards and often to supply themselves with missile weapons as well.

The technological development arguments have probably been a bit exagarrated. A longsword isn't all that much better at penetrating armour than a shorter sword, but the use of wrestling techniques and immobilization in single combat with longswords seems to have enabled the fighter to expose weak spots. In the early 15th century longsword manuals, the cutting techniques recommended for unarmoured longsword fighting disappear when the manuals discuss armoured longsword fighting, but reappear when discussing poleaxe.

In addition to the specialized archer units archery (broadly - bows, crossbows, slings, staff slings etc) in battle could also happen at closer range - there are illustrations and descriptions of cavalry using bows and crossbows when harrying defeated enemies, for example - and sometimes missile troops were intermixed with shock troops to give these an opportunity to attack while a formation was disordered as a result of missile fire. Not to mention the fact that many infantrymen not taking part in the fighting would pick up stones (or even bring them along ) and lob them over their own line at the enemies' rear ranks.

[CBR]

During the HYW it was two-thirds. The ratio became 2:1 during the Wars of the Roses as the pool of trained archers got smaller because of casualities.

Is'nt two-thirds and 2:1 the same?

AFAIK the retinue and equipments lists I have seen from the War of the Roses gives us anywhere between 1:1 and 2:1 for archers:bills/spears.

In HYW the Welsh at Crecy IIRC were 2:1. At other times most infantry recruited where archers. The overall ratio between archers and men-at-arms also varied but in the later years we hear of 3 or 4 archers per man-at-arm. (Agincourt had around 4.5 archer per man-at-arm)

The main difference between HYW and WotR is that WotR had militias involved. We have a ratio of 8:1 archers:men-at-arms when Edward IV recruited an army for an invasion of France in 1475 (10,173 archers and 1,278 men-at-arms) If anything it shows that it certainly was still possible to recruit large numbers of archers. It might have been the pool of men-at-arms that was shrinking.


CBR

[Dave1984]

I shouldn't have thought that the longswords were as much used as is suggested in the initial stages of a battle and swords in general were not yet the refined duelling weaponary that I think a lot of people are used to them being used as and are rather to be seen far more as secondary weaponary.
They seem to have been purely "assault" weapons which immediately leads to the conclusion that they were used at a critical stage of a battle, where enemy formations were wavering and their cohesion beginning to break.
I haven't seen many contemporary images of Men at Arms holding shields at the same time as swords, presumably so as to not encumber them during this period of rapid assault, and also so that they could use their free left hand to grapple with their foe, such as is described in Additional Manuscript 39564; “with the lyfte honde to hys head caste a foolle”.

[anders]

I thought early west european medieval army composition outside of scandinavia was something like this;

the local lord with his vassal knights and their men at arms, these are pretty much indistinguishable from each other apart from the amount of cash expended on armor. they all carry as many sharp or blunt objects as possible.

the peasant levy, no armor, no formal training, and as many sharp or blunt objects as they possibly can afford and carry. the only kind of specialisation would be if anybody brought bows.

no other troops, be they professional or part-timers. no units made up of specific weapons.

then of course later, you get some at least semi-professional troops of crossbowmen, longbowmen and eventually pike formations which are, in fact, distinguished by carrying a special form of armament and being grouped according to weaponry, but until that, youre either a man at arms(including the nobles) or a peasant or townsman, and you carry whatever nasty spiky piece of metal you can get your hands on.

[monkian]

During the HYW it was two-thirds. The ratio became 2:1 during the Wars of the Roses as the pool of trained archers got smaller because of casualities.

Sounds about right

[Duke John]

Is'nt two-thirds and 2:1 the same?

No, 2:1 equals half of the total according to CA's paradox theory of 2 years being 6 months

[Furious Mental]

"How were real medieval armies composed?"

I think you would have to address that to a specific army in order to get a meaningful answer.

"the local lord with his vassal knights and their men at arms, these are pretty much indistinguishable from each other apart from the amount of cash expended on armor. they all carry as many sharp or blunt objects as possible.

the peasant levy, no armor, no formal training, and as many sharp or blunt objects as they possibly can afford and carry. the only kind of specialisation would be if anybody brought bows.

no other troops, be they professional or part-timers. no units made up of specific weapons."

I am no expert on medieval armies generally but I know a thing or two about Anglo-Norman armies-

The centrepiece of the army, if it was royal, was the King and his familia regia, which was a military household of professional soldiers not a feudal host. Absolutely no "peasant levy". If the army was operating within England it would rely on semi-professional fyrdmen to provide the bulk of foot soldiers, if overseas, Breton and Flemish mercenaries. Other mercenaries fought as archers and crossbowmen. From the beginning there were tactical units at least in the terms of missile troops, infantry and cavalry, as demonstrated at the Battle of Hastings. In the Angevin period it became more complex still as English Kings relied for the bulk of their armies on recruitment by mercenary captains, who were contracted to find specific numbers of soldiers armed with specific weapons. A baronial army would not be terribly different except in that it would rely perhaps somewhat more on knights owing feudal obligations, and mercenary infantry, the fyrd not being theirs to summon.

So if medieval European armies were indeed a disorganised morass of knights and pitchfork wielding peasants, England was completely different.

[Tempiic]

and specific time. and location ;)

Well maybe just specific army at specific time.

[Azog 150]

I have never understood the difference between polearms, Halberds, Poleaxes, bills ect

Am i right in thinking, a halberd is a sprear/axe/a hook thing to pull donw cavalry. Now thats all i know, and im not sure if its even right.

[DukeofSerbia]

Very long story...
In feudal Europe clashes were mostly between knights. Typical European medieval army had 5% of mounted units.

[CBR]

Well basically a bill and halberd is the same thing: a two-handed pole weapon that combines a spear with a heavy axe like head and occasionally a hook. There are many names and variations of such weapons.

The pollaxe/pole axe is really a shorter version of a halberd better suited for individual close combat, it also has a much smaller axe head.


CBR

[Ringeck]

the peasant levy, no armor, no formal training, and as many sharp or blunt objects as they possibly can afford and carry. the only kind of specialisation would be if anybody brought bows.

For high medieval:
Both english and early spanish high medieval levies were trained at least once a year (it's in iberian laws and 12th century descriptions of London - a spesific field was put aside for it, and the freemen drilled with weapons and shields alongside the knights), and armour was present although not ubiquotous. They usually fought as spearmen or archers. Scottish and irish levies resembled scandinavia, as did parts of germany and the baltic - baltic levies were described by german knights as very fierce. The Italians and Low Countries had city and rural militia, and the french had several units of freemen, although they tended to "levy" money instead of levying troops.

Of course this changes over time, with a growing tendency toward less levy troops and more professionals and mercenaries.

[LadyAnn]

A Halberd has as curve chopping edge, if wield correctly would be able to chop a man in two. It also has a hook to pull down a rider. It has a pointy tip (sometimes the curve blade's tip serve that purpose). The tip is to thrust into armor's gap or kill the mount.

Anniep

[Vuk]

Peasants are not fairly represented in the Total War series. Peasants of many countries were equiped by their feudal lord or king-equipped fairly well. Many got yearly or seasonal training, as well as practicing year round. In countries where they were not so well equipped (They still were better equipped than the TW series shows), they made up for it by training harder and becoming kickass. While it's true that sometimes populations became standing armies, that didn't happen very often. (And all men back then new how to fight with several weapons; you needed to in order to survive.) I think the unit 'peasants' is too broad and should be replaced with more specific units.

[LadyAnn]

I still remember honor 9 peasants in STW :)

Annie

[Husar]

I have never understood the difference between polearms, Halberds, Poleaxes, bills ect

A polearm should be anything that has a long stick
A halberd has a long stick with an axe on top, a poleaxe has a longer stick with a smaller axe on top, both have some spearpoint as well, that's how I see it.
Bills usually consist of a piece of paper with a written documentation about how much the receiving person or group needs to pay.

[spong]

Polearm - a weapon which involves a two-handed haft of varying lengths.

Bill - Adapted from agricultural bill hooks, varied quite widely in appearance but comprised essentially of a thrusting spike, often a curved and heavy chopping blade, a curved often forward-facing hook to unseat a rider or hook a footsoldier behind the leg, often also had spikes on the rear of the head for puncturing armour.

Pic of a typical bill hook:
http://www.anshelmarms.com/images/arms/halberd1.jpg
(labelled Halberd for some reason)

Voulge/ Glaive / Guisarme - Varied widely, essentially a big cleaving knife on the end of a pole, but did evolve to include various rear facing spikes.

http://www.members.aol.com/dargolyt/...ge/Voulge1.gif

http://www.members.aol.com/dargolyt/...ge/voulge2.gif

Partly contributed to the evolution of...

Halberd! - Differed from the voulge in that it was essentially an axehead or cleaver on the end of a pole, wheras the voulge could already be used for thrusting with the point of the 'knife' blade as it where, the halberd developed its own thrusting point and also had rear-facing spikes.

http://www.anshelmarms.com/images/arms/halberd3.jpg

http://www.anshelmarms.com/images/arms/halberd2.jpg

Poleaxe or Polehammer - Haft 5-6 feet, used most frequently by dismounted men-at-arms (knights, sergeants etc.) Had an axe head, rear facing spike or more often hammer-head and a thrusting spike on the top.

Poleaxe with hammer at rear
http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com...rmor/azza1.jpg

Poleaxe with spike at rear
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Some of the Swiss soldiers favoured a variation known as the Lucerne hammer, which had the axe part omitted and replaced by a hammer head with three curved prongs instead, still with a rear facing spike.

Many polearms including pikes had strips of metal rivetted to the haft near the head to prevent the head being chopped off, these were called 'langets'. Some polearms such as the poleaxe also might be fitted with a metal disc below the head to act as a handgaurd.

Found this useful link http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Another useful link to a galleries page:
http://therionarms.com/old_armor_page.shtml

[Aracnid]

Despite what I said above it is very hard to point to a 'typical' medieval army, I am sure that some were well organised, with uniform equipment at unit level and a 'modern' chain of command (platoon-company-battalion-brigade-division-corps-army). The Byzantine army for example inherited much of the ethos of the Roman legions, i.e. individual units e.g. the various Guards, who were uniformly equipped by the state and were properly organised.

I am also sure that some were a large mob of frightened peasants with knives, sharp sticks and the odd bow with a much smaller group of well trained and equipped knights.

[Dave1984]

some were a mob of frightened peasants with knives, sharp sticks and the odd bow with a much smaller group of well trained and equipped knights.

Yes, although this would have been the case in the instances of armies and militias raised to defend landlocked countries, rather than the rather better organised and equipped forces that you would find conducting raids and full scale invasions.

Although you rarely would have seen a cohesive recognisable military structure as we may see today, I presume that it would have remained in some shape or form somewhere and somehow. I'm not an expert on Byzantine military organization (actually I barely know a thing) but even still this is where I'd expect it to remain.

In England, in raising his forces for the campaign of 1415, Henry V used the system of indenture that was tried and tested which involved individual contracts for soldier between themselves and individuals and those who they signed the contract with, each contract cut in a way we I suppose could describe as wavy in order that on occasion of dispute the two halves could be matched to confirm identity.
It is this that suggests an army based more on individual recruitment rather than in units, although lords of the land were still expected (and in many cases, got into severe debt in doing so) to raise proportionate numbers of soldiers from their lands. This was not the simple thoughtless obedience that it had been, however, and as mentioned the contracts were made on an individual basis and we can see this still in the names of some of the men recruited, bearing in mind that surnames at this time were often derived from occupation or place of birth/residence...Nicholas Armourer, for instance, or Henry Flettcher or William Blackburn, although individuality still seems to have been less preferred than efficiency, at least by every right thinking man's enemy, the clerk, who wanted to indenture the poorer soldiers, archers, in groups of at least four and preferably twelve.
The ratio of Men-at Arms to archers in Henry's army was about five to one at the beginning of the campaign and still about four to one at the end.

And I apologise but I have partaken of too much wine and I have forgotten exactly what it was I intended to conclude with.

[Ringeck]

I am also sure that some were a large mob of frightened peasants with knives, sharp sticks and the odd bow with a much smaller group of well trained and equipped knights.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it is largerly unproveable - peasant troops seem to, in practically every incident they are mentioned (even extreme examples such as the "people's crusade" or the Jaquerie) to have equipped themselves with basic equipment (spears or other polearms, and shields), and whereas they'd typically be inferor to the professionals in manouvre, no-one in their right mind would bring totally unmotivated troops to the battlefield.

[Dave1984]

The problem with this hypothesis is that it is largerly unproveable - peasant troops seem to, in practically every incident they are mentioned (even extreme examples such as the "people's crusade" or the Jaquerie) to have equipped themselves with basic equipment (spears or other polearms, and shields), and whereas they'd typically be inferor to the professionals in manouvre, no-one in their right mind would bring totally unmotivated troops to the battlefield.

I agree, but it is entirely feasible that it could/would have occurred in instances of dire peril, certainly not in offensive scenarios and certainly not with anything approaching regularity.
When Henry V landed in France for the 1415 campaign, local residents who had been put on alert for defence were in the end told to return to their homes, suggesting that, outside of fortified towns, it was relatively safe for peasants during times of war.
It would have to be an incredibly ruthless/desperate/stupid ruler who would push a bunch of peasants into battle.