How were real medieval armies composed?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.