How were real medieval armies composed?

[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.

[Furious Mental]

"it was relatively safe for peasants during times of war."

Actually peasants suffered from war more than anyone. Following the theories of Roman strategist Vegetius, medieval leaders avoided gambling their armies in pitched battles and often major sieges. Wars were won chiefly by gaining a logistical advantage over the enemy in a war of attrition- in other words campaigns centered around garnering as many supplies as possible for one's own forces and denying them to the enemy. What this amounted to was outright pillage of the countryside and it most definitely led to people in the affected areas starving to death and if not that then at least having a very hard time of it.

[Dave1984]

"it was relatively safe for peasants during times of war."

Actually peasants suffered from war more than anyone. Following the theories of Roman strategist Vegetius, medieval leaders avoided gambling their armies in pitched battles and often major sieges. Wars were won chiefly by gaining a logistical advantage over the enemy in a war of attrition- in other words campaigns centered around garnering as many supplies as possible for one's own forces and denying them to the enemy. What this amounted to was outright pillage of the countryside and it most definitely led to people in the affected areas starving to death and if not that then at least having a very hard time of it.

I didn't mean that, sorry, I meant that in general the peasants wouldn't fight and wouldn't be fought.
Whether they starved to death or not is another matter.