Armies and Warfare

During the
Wars of the Roses

Douglas John Sadler

 Medieval Warfare Series

Armies and Warfare

During the Wars of the Roses

Douglas John Sadler

Stuart Press
117 Farleigh Road Backwell, Bristol
1st Edition 2000
Copyright: Historical Management Associates Ltd 2000
ISBN 978 1 85804 183 4
1) Introduction

On the 24th August 1453 Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, the youngest son of the Earl of
Northumberland lay in ambush by Heworth Moor, north-east of York. With him waited a
thousand men at arms; their quarry the bridal party attending Sir Thomas Neville and his bride,
Maude Stanhope. The bride and groom were accompanied by the groom’s parents, the Earl and
Countess of Salisbury, and his brother John, travelling north from Tattershall Castle in
Lincolnshire where the marriage had been celebrated.

The Nevilles were by no means unguarded and were clearly alert to the threat of attack, when the
Percies swarmed from ambuscade the bridal party acquitted themselves valiantly and the assault
was vigorously repelled. Though the affair was little more than a further skirmish in a long and
bitter feud between two powerful border families, it has been said to represent the first clash in
what came to be known as The Wars Of The Roses, though this term was only applied from the
sixteenth century.[l]

Blood was shed in the streets of St. Albans when several of the leading Lancastrian lords,
including Somerset, the Queen’s incompetent favourite and Northumberland fell. The legacy of
hate which this engendered festered until renewed hostilities flared in 1458, another Yorkist
victory won by Salisbury at Blore Heath was followed by ignominious failure at Ludford Bridge
and the temporary eclipse of York. Warwick’s energetic leadership spearheaded the revival
which saw triumph at Northampton, York’s heavyhanded assumption of power set him on the
road to defeat and death at Wakefield. The Queen’s ungovernable host, led by the vengeful sons
of those slain at St. Albans, pillaged its way south, brushing Warwick aside at the second battle
of St. Albans. Indecision cost the victors the campaign however and Edward, Earl of March,
fought a brilliant fight against Welsh Lancastrians at Mortimers Cross before assuming the
throne as Edward IV.

As the Queen’s host retreated north the Yorkists followed gathering strength and, in the biting
sleet of a bitter Palmsunday, the biggest, most hard fought and bloodiest battle ever to have
occurred on British soil took place a few miles south of York between the villages of Towton
and Saxton. The Lancastrians, led by the Queens’ paladin, the Duke of Somerset and supported
by the bulk of the Northern peerage and gentry were, after a day long battle, routed with terrible
loss; ‘ King Edward told me that in all the battles which he had won, as soon as he had gained
victory, he mounted his horse and shouted to his men that they must spare the common soldiers
and kill the lords of which none or few escaped.’[2]
Contents

1) Introduction................................................................................................... 1

2) The raising of armies.................................................................................... 3

5
3) Troop types...................................................................................................
7
4) Strategy and tactics.......................................................................................
8
5) Arms and armour..........................................................................................
11
6) Missile weapons.............................................................................................

7) Fortifications and sieges................................................................................ 12

14
8) Naval warfare................................................................................................

9) The experience of battle................................................................................. 15

Glossary................................................................................................................... 17
Notes 18
The flower of northern chivalry, including the Earl of Northumberland, Ralph, Lord Dacre of
Gilsland and Lord Clifford, who had been struck down by an arrow in the skirmish at
Dintingdale the day before lost their lives. The Lancastrian cause seemed doomed by the
magnitude of defeat but the war in the north was to continue until the final defeat at Hexham, on
15 th May, 1464. [3]

With the peace came the slow deterioration of relations between the King and his first minister,
Warwick, the latters overweaning arrogance and penchant for intrigue led to discontent and a
further outbreak of troubles, the Kings forces were defeated at Edgcote and though a peace of
sorts was patched up Warwick, in 1470, briefly succeeded in ousting Edward and, in unlikely
alliance with Margaret of Anjou, engineered the ‘re-adeption’ of the helpless Henry VI before
the whole pack of cards collapsed and Edward slew Warwick and his brother Montagu at Barnet
before turning to deal with Margaret and her son Edward of Lancaster whose forces were led by
another Beaufort, Edmund, Earl of Somerset. The campaign ended in bloody carnage and rout at
Tewkesbury where the young Lancastrian prince fell, most probably on the field and Somerset
to the headsman’s axe. The twice redundant Henry was done to death shortly after in the Tower.

Peace returned, marred only by the intrigues of the King’s turncoat brother, Clarence, whose
increasing instability led him to a grim death in 1478. When Edward, ‘the Sun in Splendour’
died in corpulent middle age in 1483, he left a young son who was to follow as Edward V. The
boy never saw his throne however as a brief power struggle between Richard of Gloucester and
Queen Elizabeth with her avaricious and unloved siblings was swiftly resolved in favour of the
former. Gloucester’s erstwhile ally Lord Hastings, the late King’s companion in debauchery, was
soon disposed of when he began to suspect the Duke’s true intent - to seize the throne.

Whether or not Richard IH did or did not murder his nephews will remain the stuff of endless
partisan debate, but his short tenure of the crown was an unhappy one, plagued by enemies from
without and within. A rebellion by his disgruntled and weak minded confederate Buckingham
was followed by Henry Tudor’s invasion. At the time the Welshman, an untried adventurer, must
have seemed like an outside chance but the day at Bosworth, on 22nd August 1485, saw King
Richard slain and the Tudor assuming his crown. The final trial came with Lincoln’s rebellion,
defeat and death at Stoke Field two years later.

2) The raising of armies

In order to provide a reliable supply of trained fighting men Edward 111 had largely developed
the contract system whereby the monarch as commander in chief entered into formal
engagements, indentured contracts in writing, with experienced captains who were then bound to
provide an agreed number of men, at established rates for a given period. The protracted and
widespread campaigning in France made the reputations of famous captains, such as Knollys and
Chandos. Frequently scions of the nobility acted as the principal or main contractor and
sub-contracted knights, men at arms and archers in turn.[4]
The end of the Hundred Years War and the final demise of English hopes had resulted in large
numbers of unemployed soldiery crossing the Channel, these frequently sought new
opportunities in the swelling armies of the great magnates. As the land drifted toward misrule
and violence under the weak governance of a feeble king lords such as the Nevilles and the
Percies began increasingly to rely on their and their retainers swords to settle disputes. It became
common practice for landowners to bind their mesnie knights to their service by the provision of
annuities. Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham who died in 1460, had a total of 10
knights and 27 esquires in his service, one of the former, Sir Edward Grey was granted a life
annuity of forty pounds in 1440, lesser men received payments of between ten and twenty
pounds per annum. [5]

In addition to these professional retainers a lord could call upon his tenantry, whose muster
could be swelled by a scattering of landless or simply frightened men who craved the relative
security of a great man’s badge or livery - thus the pernicious system of ‘livery and
maintainance’ came into being, as the baronial armies grew in size and in temerity the rule of
law diminished accordingly. A surviving indenture from 1452, entered into between Walter
Strickland, a knight of Westmoreland and his lord, the Earl of Salisbury, lists the complement
which the former could provide; billmen, ‘horsed and harnessed’- 74; bowmen, likewise
arrayed,- 69; dismounted billmen - 76 and dismounted bowmen, 71, a by no means
unimpressive total of 290.[6] In most companies it would appear that archere were the
predominant arm, outnumbering men at arms by anything from 3 to 1 to 10 to 1.

When Sir John Paston was preparing to sail for Calais he requested that his brother recruit 4
archers, ‘...... Likely men and fair conditioned and good archers and they shall have 4 marks by
year and my livery.’ [7] In short these were to be permanent retainers with an annual salary. A
particularly skilled archer belonging to a lord’s household retainers might command as high a
wage as a knight. In 1475 Edward IV was raising ar army to intimidate France and his magnates
contributed to the muster as follows:

Duke of Clarence; 10 knights, 1000 archers

Duke of Gloucester; 10 knights, 1000 archers
Duke of Norfolk; 2 knights, 300 archers
Duke of Suffolk; 2 knights, 300 archers
Duke of Buckingham; 4 knights, 400 archers[8]

The king still had the power to issue what were termed ‘Commissions of Array’ which
empowered his officers to call up local militias, who, at least in theory, were to be the best
armed and accoutred men from each village in the county; this system was much open to abuse,
a tendency Shakespeare was later to parody in 1 Henry IV. [9]

Contemporary letters from the Stonor correspondence and which relate to the Oxfordshire half
hundred of Ewelme, comprising some 17 villages show that the catchment yielded 85 soldiers,
17 of whom were archers; Ewelme itself fielded 6 recruits:
Richard Slyhurst, a harness and able to do the King service with his bow, Thomas Staunton [the
constable] John Hume, whole harness and both able to do the king service with a bill. John
Tanner, a harness and able to do the King service with a bill. John Pallying, a harness and not
able to wear it, Roger Smith, no harness, an able man and a good archer.’ Those without
armour are described as ‘able with a staff. ’ [10]

Surviving muster rolls from the period also provide an insight into the local levy One held at
Bridport in Dorset on 04 September, 1457, before the Kings Officers reveal that that a man was
expected to possess a sallet, jack, sword, buckler and dagger. Some 2/3 of those paraded carried
bows and a number of arrows. Other weapons noted included poleaxes, glaives, bills, spears and
axes, staves and a miscellany of armour.[l1]

The Italian, Dominic Mancini, has left us with a vivid eyewitness account of the appearence of
the troops Gloucester and Buckingham brought into London in 1483 to supply the ‘muscle’
behind Richard’s usurpation, ‘...There is hardly any without a helmet, and none without bows
and arrows; their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations, just
as their bodies are stronger than other peoples for the seem to have hands and arms of iron.
The range of their bows is no less than that of our arbalests; there hangs by the side of each a
sword no less long than ours, but heavy and thick as well. The sword is always accompanied by
an iron shield... they do not wear any metal armour on their breast or any other part of their
body, except for the better sort who have breastplates and suits of armour. Indeed the common
soldiery have more comfortable tunics that reach down below the loins and are stuffed with tow
or some other soft material. They say the softer the tunics they better do they withstand the blows
of arrows and swords, and besides that in summer they are lighter and in winter more
serviceable than iron. ’[12]

3) Troop types

In the fifteenth century the armoured knight was still regarded as the arbiter on the battlefield,
notwithstanding the havoc caused amongst mounted chivalry by massed archery and on occasion
by bodies of pikemen and spears, (Courtrai, 1302 and Bannockburn, 1313). The longbow was s
highly specialised weapon and not one that was ever used in significant numbers by continental
armies. By the late fifteenth century, Swiss halberdiers and pikes had hacked down some of the
pride of European knighthood, as at Sempach in 1386 and later against Charles the Bold of
Burgundy in his doomed campaigns. It was not until the handgun came into widespread use that
the long supremacy of the mounted gentleman finally came to an end.

The roots of knighthood lay in the mist shrouded past, chivalry was a creation of the early
middle ages which, on paper at least, provided a code for the behaviour, on and off the field, of
the military elite. The profession of arms was the only career open to a man of good family and
he trained assidously from an early age usually being placed in the house of another noble to
receive his training amongst other young men of his class, squires, (from ecuyer, bearers of the
shield or ecu). For a century before the Wars of the Roses squires had learnt their trade on the
killing fields of France, from 1455 they were to practise on their own kind.
A civil war leaves little room for chivalry and the decline in knightly virtues was much
bemoaned by contemporary writers, though vestiges did remain. In his work ‘Le Jouvencel,’ the
chronicler Jean de Beuil, writing c. 1466, gives an insight into the mind of the fifteenth century
gentleman:

‘ What a joyous thing is war, for many fine deeds are seen in its course, and many good lessons
learnt from it....... You love your comrade so much in war. When you see that your quarrel is just
and your blood is fighting well, tears rise in your eyes. A great sweet feeling of loyalty and pity
fills your heart on seeing your friend so valiantly exposing his body to execute and accomplish
the command of our Creator. And then you prepare to go and live or die with him, and for love
not abandon him. And out of that there arises such a delectation, that he who has not tasted it is
not fit to say what a delight is. Do you think that a man who does that fears death? Not at all; for
he feels strengthened, he is so elated, that he does not know where he is. Truly he is afraid of
nothing. ’ [13]

Fine sentiments but the list of slaughters which accompanied battles does not bear this out, the
desire for revenge, fear, greed and sheer expediency were powerful diversions. Salisbury was
given to the mob, or so it appears, after his capture at Wakefield, his nephew Rutland was
savagely cut down by Clifford after the same fight, battles such as Hexham and Tewkesbury
were followed by a vicious clearance of the defeated.

The use of longbowmen by both sides inevitably meant that the destructive power of the
formidable English bow, which had regularly contributed to victory against the French, was now
unleashed in civil strife with consequential increase in casualties. Battles throughout the series of
conflicts which we now term as the Wars of the Roses, therefore habitually began with an
archery duel. The only means whereby combatants could escape the deadly barrage of mussiles
was to advance to contact as quickly as possible and engage in savage hand to hand melee. [14]

Archery at this stage did not win battles as it had in the preceding century in encounters such as
those at Dupplin Moor, 1332, or Halidon Hill in 1333. The potency of massed archers had
signally contributed to the numerous victories in the French wars at Crecy, 1346, Poitiers,
1356, Najera, 1366 and, perhaps most famous of all, Agincourt in 1415. Even as late as 1487 at
Stoke Field, the Earl of Lincoln’s lightly clad Irish kerns were mown down by the Tudor’s
longbowmen but none of the major clashes in the period was determined soley by archery.

The opening showers of arrows would, nonetheless, have been an almost unbearable test for the
opposing forces, even the knights and better armoured men at arms were not immune from hurt,
many accounts refer to arrow wounds, at or before Towton both Clifford and Lord Dacre were
fatally struck down when they unwisely removed their bevors to take, doubtless much needed,
refreshment. It has been claculated that, again with reference to Palmsunday Field that, if each
archer loosed 48 arrows, over a million shafts with a total weight of some 40 tons would have
been expended in that engagement alone! [15]

In all probability the archers, like the billmen and men at arms remained with their own
companies rather than being formed as a separate arm - most likely, at the start of the fight, all
would advance a few paces from the line to shoot and then retake their places for the melee
which was bound to follow.

As a contemporary chronicler observed ‘...After the third or fourth, or at the very most the sixth
draw of the bows, men knew which side would win. ’[16]

Knights and men at arms dismounted to fight on foot, horses were sent to the rear, to be
mounted only when the enemy was in rout, pursuit of a beaten foe was both rigorous and
merciless, the slaughter indiscriminate. A wealthy captive in the French wars could be the
makings of a yeomans’ fortune, but a lord whose lands stood to be attainted by the victors, had
no commercial value. Personal animosities were a constant factor, the victorious Yorkists who
rode into the northern capital after their crushing victory at Towton were confronted by the
ravaged skulls of close relatives slain earlier at Wakefield, the deaths of the Duke of York, his
son the Earl of Rutland, Salisbury and his son Sir Thomas Neville, reflected the younger
Lancastrians craving for revenge for the blood of their own kin spilt at 1st St. Albans.

Light horse or ‘prickers’ were used for scouting and reconaissance, but once battle was joined,
there was little direct control that a commander could exercise. Annies were marshalled into 3
divisions or ‘battles’- the van, or vaward, main battle and the rear, who deployed for combat in
line, the knights and men at arms with archers to the fore standing beneath the unfurled banners
of their captain or lord. [ 17]

4) Strategy and tactics

War is and has always been a hazardous business. In the fifteenth century a commander had
limited forces at his disposal, a defeat in the field was likely to be fatal to his cause, and quite
likely to his person. Communications were dependant upon gallopers and, where possible,
signalling with flags, supply and victualling a constant headache and treachery around every
comer. In the many battles of the Hundred Years War English generals had usually fought on the
defensive, adopting the harrow or ‘herce’ formation with dismounted battalions of men at arms
alternating with wedge shaped formations of archers. The missile power of the longbow, the
discipline and cohesion of the foot, had combined to produce a series of stunning victories over
the hasty elan of French chivalry.

Those heady days ended with the defeats at Formigny and Castillon though the legacy of the
French wars was a generation of nobility with experience of commanding armies in the field,
like both York and Salisbury, supported by veteran aides such as Fauconberg and Trollope. The
arrow storm meant both sides moving swiftly to contact but, on several occasions, such as
Salisbury’s stand at Blore Heath, purely defensive tactics worked well. Warwick’s complex
network of defences proved to be a veritable Maginot Line at second St. Albans and the
Lancastrian entrenchments at Northampton failed utterly. In part this was due to treachery and,
in the shifting sands of allegiances, the most carefully wrought plans could be wrecked by a
change of heart: It was Lord Grey’s connivance that breached the defences at Northampton, that
and the weather which soaked the guns. Trollope’s defection at Ludford Bridge precipitated a
general Yorkist collapse, York is said to have been lured into the fatal fight at Wakefield by a
ruse of Trollope’s devising and Warwick blamed the debacle at St. Albans on the Kentish
Lovelace’s alleged defection.

Armies were generally deployed in three divisions or ‘battles’ the van, main body and rear. Once
battle commenced it is said that a commander could do little to influence events, for purposes of
morale a leader was expected to display both valour and prowess. Edward IV, considered, quite
properly, as the finest captain of his day was always prominent in the front rank, his homeric
stature doubtless giving heart to those around him.

Good intelligence was, as always, vital, all armies fielded scouts or ‘scourers’ - bad intelligence,
such as York’s lamentable failure before Wakefield could lead to disaster for, once committed to
battle, it was very difficult if not impossible to disengage. In the dangerous game of cat and
mouse of the Tewkesbury campaign Margaret of Anjou several times avoided contact and left
Edward’s army drawn up for a battle without an enemy. The King also had his scouts, however,
and by gruelling marches in the heavy heat followed by a dash throught the short summer
darkness, he frustrated the Lancastrians attempt to cross the Severn at Gloucester and eventually
brought Somerset to bay.

Although armies tended to deploy in linear formation with opposing divisions aligned, this could
go awry, depending upon weather and terrain, as at Barnet. A commander with an eye for ground
might try to deploy an ambush party for a flank attack, such as Somerset at Towton and Edward
at Tewkesbury, such tactics were tried and tested, surprise attacks had contributed to the victors
cause in numerous previous engagements; Neville’s Cross in 1346, Poitiers, ten years later and
Otterbum in 1388.

Late medieval captains were usually literate and familiar with their trade, many would have read
the classical authors, such as the late Roman theorist, Vegetius, whose ‘Epitoma Rei Militaris’
was revised in the fifteenth century by Christine de Pisan who also wrote ‘Livre des fais d’armes
et de chevalerie.’ This was translated and popularised by Caxton as ‘The Book of the Fayttes of
Armes and Chyvalrye.’

The continental system of ‘lances’ was not, as it appears used, companies were led by their
captains and formed according to their weapons, banners were important as both morale boosters
and as rallying points in the heat of battle. The use of liveries did produce some degree of
uniformity amongst companies of retainers. The soldier wore a tunic or tabard over his armour
or jack bearing his lord’s badge, in the case of the Percies this was a livery of russet, yellow and
orange bearing the Percy lion rampant on the shoulder. Conversely this could also cause
confusion and, as in the mist at Bamet where Lord Montagu’s men mistook Oxfords star and
stream for King Edward’s sun and stream, disaster.

5) Arms and armour

The latter half of the fifteenth century saw the final flowering of the armourers art, fine plate
armours that could even resist the clothyard shaft. Italian harness of the period were skillfully
 crafted to maximise deflection, defences for vulnerable areas at the shoulder, elbow and knee
were strengthened, fashioned ribs on exposed parts were constructed to deflect a killing
thrust. [10] German armourers further developed this concept into the angular perfection of the
Gothic style with its emphasis on uncompromising lines swept by heavy fluting. A harness of
this period might weigh 60 lbs. or so and would not greatly inhibit the mobility of a robust man,
trained since boyhood to move and fight in armour.[19] The medieval knight even when fighting
on foot, as he most often did during the Wars of the Roses, bore a lesser burden of weight than
the ‘tommies’ going ‘over the top’ in the mud of Flanders four and a half centuries later, gasping
under their eighty pounds of rifle and pack.

The Italian and German styles came together in Flanders, which was a flourishing centre of
manufacture and where Italian armourers working there produced a hybrid style that features the
flexible, fluted plates of the Gothic combined with the more rounded pauldrons and tassets of
their native land. Such armours were sold in quantities in England and feature on numerous
funerary monuments.

For head protection the stylish sallet form of helmet was popular from mid century onward, the
rear of the elegantly curved brim was swept downward into a pointed tail to provide extra
deflection to the vulnerable areas at the back of the head and neck, usually furnished with a
hinged visor, protection to the throat was afforded by a separate piece, the bevor which strapped
around the neck. Although knights were able to move relatively freely even in full plate, thirst
and head exhaustion were constant threats, even in winter campaigning. The Lancastrain paladin,
‘ Butcher’ Clifford was fatally wounded by an arrow when he removed his bevor to quench his
thirst in the heat of the fierce skirmish at Dintingdale, prior to Palmsunday Field at Towton.

Dressing for battle was best achieved at leisure as a contemporary account from c. 1450 quite
clearly shows: ‘ To arme a man. Ffirste ye must set on Sabatones and tye hem up on the shoo
with smale poyntis that woll not breke. And then griffus [greaves] and then cuisses and ye
breche of mayle. And the Tonletis [Tonlet - Fauld], And the Brest and ye Vambras and ye
rerebras and then gloovis. And then hand his daggere up on his right side. And then his shorte
sworde on his lyfte side in a round rynge all nakid to pull it out lightli. And the put his cote upon
his back. And then his basinet [bascinet] pyind [pinned] up on two greet staplis before the
breste with a dowbill bokill [double buckle] behynde up on the back for to make the basinet sitte
juste. And then his long swerd [sword] in his hande. And then his pensil [pennon] in his hande
peynted of St. George or of oure ladye to bless him with as he goeth towarde the felde and in the
felde. ’[20]

Whilst knights and men at arms would wear full harness archers tended to favour padded ‘jacks’
or ‘brigandines,’ these were fabric garments reinforced with plates of steel or bone rivetted to the
material, leather or canvas or sometimes just stuffed with rags. Much lighter and cheaper than
plate these affored surprisingly good protection and were sometimes finished with sleeves of
mail. Though archers generally did not wear leg protection billmen and men at arms might wear
full or part leg harness A mans equipment would reflect the status of his lord quite frequently
augmented by his dexterity at looting dead or prisoners so that more seasoned campaigners
probably boasted greater protection, a eclectic array of pieces and styles. The foot relied for
headgear on a steel sallet or the ‘kettle’ hat, a forerunner of the steel helmets worn by British
soldiers in both world wars of the last century.

One of the most popular knightly weapons of the age was the fearsome poleaxe; a heavy axe
blade on a stout ash shaft, four to six feet in length, a hefty ‘beak’ or hammer head on the reverse
of the blade and the head tapered to a wicked spike. This tool was designed to defeat the
armourers art by ‘opening up’ an armoured opponent, like a rather crude but deadly can opener.
Popular in the tourney and for judicial duelling the blade was protected by steel strips or languets
which sought to frustrate an attackers attempt to strike off the head. The Duke of Somerset
cornered at the first battle of St. Albans and denied quarter is said to have cut down a quartet of
Yorkists before the sweeping stroke of a poleaxe felled him. The halberd, made famous by the
Swiss, was also popular, heavier than the poleaxe with a cleaver like blade and short double
headed spear point.

By this time the crude peasants bill had been refined into an elegant killing implement or
‘glaive’ with a long head tapering to a point, the blade furnished with a hook and a handy spike
on the back edge. The horsemans lance, carried couched under the arm, was used for thrusting,
the hold meant that the weapon angled across the chest and effective use required extensive
training and constant practice. For foot combat the shaft was frequently cut down in length.

The medieval sword reached the peak of its development at this time and prior to its eclipse in
the next century by the more stylish rapier. Blades were designed for both cut and thrust, long
and elegantly tapering with a full grip that could be held one or two handed, in section not unlike
a flattened diamond. Simple quillons, curved or straight, a wheel, pear or kite shaped pommel.
The first six inches or so of the blade below the quillons, the ‘ricasso’ was often left blunted to
facilitate a double handed spear like thrust. The foot carried a simpler, lighter and considerably
less expensive sidearm, a short single edged sword with the quillons curved around the hilt to
provide a crude knuckle guard. By this time the knightly shield had dissapeared, archers engaged
in siege operations would use a heavy wooden shield or pavise and the simple round target or
buckler, made of steel, with a central grip was used, primarily, for parrying and for a deft blow to
the opponents face if the opportunity offered.

Gentlemen and commons both carried daggers, the former tended to favour the rather stylish
rondel, not unlike the much later Scottish dirk in dimension and appearence with a tapering
triangular section blade, hardwood grip, disc guard and pommel. A favoured method of
dispatching an armoured foe was a lethal thrust through the narrow eye slit above the visor.
Once felled to the ground a man’s chances of survival were drastically reduced, hacked,
trampled or stabbed, not even the finest plate could offer much real protection.

Another weapon which featured in both foot and mounted combat was the war hammer, a
variant of the battle axe and mace with a wooden or steel shaft 2’6” in length, a pick head with a
stubby hammer on the reverse. Richard III is said to have fought his last fight at Bosworth
wielding a war hammer, to considerable effect, in the press of his enemies. [21]
6) Missile weapons

The Wars of the Roses saw the redoubtable English longbow employed by both sides, previously
it had been England’s enemies who suffered the full weight of the arrow storm in the great
victories of the Scots and French wars. Longbows had been used at the battle of Shrewsbury in
1403, when the Northumbrian paladin Hotspur met his death, most likely from an arrow wound
and the casualties on that bloody field gave dire warning of the carnage to come in the conflicts
between Lancaster and York. The term longbow or long bow as first used only came into being
during the sixteenth century and the plain expression ‘bow’ or ‘livery bow’ was more common in
the fifteenth.

Retained or livered archers normally carried their own weapons but, in the course of the French
wars, the office of Ordnance began issuing standard bows on campaign to make up for those lost
or damaged, so that many bows were manufactured to a standard or government pattern, like the
soldiers musket and rifle of later generations. Yew was the preferred timber though ash, elm and
wych-elm were also used. The bow was usually between 5’7” and 6’2” in length, the cross
section corresponded to a rounded ‘D’ with a draw weight of between 80- 120 lbs, (a modem
target bow has an average draw of around 45 lbs).

Arrows were made from a variety of woods, Roger Ascham, Elizabeth I’s tutor and a noted
authority from the sixteenth century advocates aspen as the most suitable, though ash, alder,
elder, birch, willow and hornbeam were also utilised. The shafts were generally around 2’6” in
length, the fletching made from grey goose feathers. Arrowheads came in a variety of forms, flat
hammer headed, barbed or wickedly sharp needle points or bodkins to punch through plate.
Arrows were described as ‘livery’- being issued to retainers, ‘standard’- made to a universal
specification and ‘sheaf’ - as they came in bundles of 24.[22]

The bow was tipped at each end with cowhom, grooved to take the linen string and when not in
use the weapon was carried, unstrung, in a cloth bag. To draw the archer gripped the bow with
his left hand about the middle where the circumference was around 41/2” then he forced the the
centre of the bow away from him to complete the draw, using the weight of his body to assist the
draw, rather than relying on the strength in his arms alone. Such expertise required constant
training and practice at the butts was compelled by statute, long range shooting was preferred
and the bow was effective at over 200 yards, a distinct improvement on the later flintlock Brown
Bess, which was seldom effective beyond 50 paces. A leather or horn ‘bracer’ was strapped to
the wrist to protect the archer from the snap of the bowstring.

Properly deployed the longbow was an effective battle winning weapon, many of those who
fought in the civil war between York and Lancaster would have seen service in the French wars.
Time has dulled the memory of the arrow storm’s ferocity but few who survived can ever have
forgotten, the arrow wound did not have the merciful numbing of a high velocity bullet and the
majority of the rank and file had little real defence. At Towton, in the bitter sleet, cunning Lord
Fauconberg advanced his archers to loose into the packed ranks of Lancastrians, the arrows
flicking through the snow. Disconcerted and blinded by the hail Somerset’s archers responded
but, not realising the Yorkists had advanced to shoot and now withdrew, they expended their
arrows in vain, only serving to provide a reserve for their enemies when they advanced again to
reply. So galling was the Yorkist deluge that the Lancastrians advanced to contact rather than
endure.

Crossbows in the fifteenth century were both powerful and sophisticated, so much so that they
required a rather complex arrangment of pulleys and cords operated by windlass to span, the
draw weight might thus be as great as 1000lb enough to punch the bolt throught several files of
soldiery. The great disadvantage obviously was the very slow rate of fire and the crossbowman,
when on the field, generally needed a heavy wooden shield or pavise to cover him whilst he went
through the cumbersome process of loading. Though favoured on the continent crossbows were
little used in England.

Although traditional siege engines, the ballista, the trebuchet and the mangonel continued in use
artillery was steadily growing in importance; in April 1464, as King Edward was preparing to
march north he made ready his siege train, which was to include, ‘the great ordnance of
England’ - the bombards ‘Dijon,’’London,’ ‘Newcastle,’’Edward,’ and ‘Richard
Bombartel.’[23]

The new science of gunnery had begun to surpass the art of the military architect, Henry V had
used heavy guns to batter the walls of Harfleur in 1415, and the defences of Le Mans had been
breached after but a few days bombardment. [24] ‘Bombard’ appears to have been a generic
description applied to any large siege gun, there was no standardisation of calibres at this
time. [25] These larger pieces were fired from ground level and from behind a hinged timber
shutter, rather like a large version of the archers mantlet, that provided some cover for the
gunner and matrasses - their calling was distinctly hazardous even safe from enemy action. Most
guns loaded at the breech, having a removable breech-block, shaped not unlike a beer mug; by
the 1460’s trunnions were coming into use and even the heavier pieces were being equipped with
serviceable if crude gun carnages. [26] Elevaton was achieved by the use of wedges.

The transportation of these monsters was a major difficulty, large teams of draught horses or
oxen were needed, a section of pioneers would almost certainly be added to the complement,
theirs the unenviable task of levelling and filling the generally appalling roads. Larger guns were
still manufactured on the ‘hoop and stave’ principle, though casting in brass and bronze was
becoming commonplace. [27] The period also witnessed the growing importance of the handgun,
which at this time were nothing more than small cannon lashed onto a timber stock, or fitted
with a rude socket. The handgun or ‘hagbutt’ was aimed by being held underarm, or lifted over
the shoulder and pointed in the general direction of an enemy, the weapon was then
discharged by applying slow match to the touch hole. [28]

7) Fortifications and sieges

By the latter part of the fifteenth century dominance in the centuries old competition between
those who built castles and those who sought to knock them down had swung dramatically in
favour of the latter. Developments in fortified architecture had not yet caught up with the science
of gunnery though the concept of the artillery fort was literally just around the comer. In about
1480 the burghers of Dartmouth caused a small but potent fort to be erected covering the Haven,
complete with a range of gun ports. The trend therefore was to move away from building castles
as fortified residences for the baronage and gentry toward more specialised defences with no
domestic function. In Scotland James M contemplated a chain of artillery forts on the banks of
the Forth Estuary though, in practice, only one of these, at Ravenscraig in Fife, ever proceeded to
completion.

At the date of his death at the usurping hands of Richard III William, Lord Hastings, had engaged
the architect Couper, better known for his civilian works, to construct a fortified dwelling for
him at Kirby Muxloe in Leicestershire. This had, it been fully commisioned, would have been
provided with squat, square towers and a strong gatehouse, designed to carry ordnance. The
increasing use of gunloops seen in Scottish tower houses and ‘Z’ plan towers of the late fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries shows that the defensive qualities of gunfire were also appreciated. [29]

Although artillery had radically diminished the stature of castles as centres of resistance, guns
remained expensive to acquire and difficult to transport, the various sieges of the Lancastrian
held Northumbrian castles from 1461 - 1464 witnessed the presence of guns but only one
recorded instance of their use, against Bamburgh in 1464. Here the great guns were brought into
play only with extreme reluctance, the mighty border holds were still key bastions against the
Scots and slighting these valuable fortresses was best avoided. It was only the intransigence of
the turncoat Sir Ralph Grey who was only too well aware of the clemency he might expect from
Warwick that led to the bombardment, no sooner had a providential fall of masonry from a
plunging ball rendered Sir Ralph unconscious than his followers sued for terms and gave their
stunned commander up to his fate. [30]

In 1473 John de Vere the mercurial Earl of Oxford launched a somewhat quixotic bid to
stimulate a Lancastrian revival in the west by seizing St. Michaels Mount with some two
hundred followers. The fortress was captured by a ruse but proved extremely difficult to retake;
the Sherriff of Cornwall losing his life in a botched escalade. His successor, John Fortescue
though well provided with ships, guns and men fared little better, the castle’s elevated position
defied the Yorkist gunners whose pieces could not be brought to bear and it was not until
February the following year that starvation obliged the Earl to surrender.[31]

Perhaps the most prolonged and celebrated siege of the wars was the investment of Harlech, the
base for Lancastrianhopes in North Wales. A concentric castle, built by Edward I and well sited
on an elevated crag, with access to the sea and thus revictualling the massive defences resisted
every attempt for some 7 years. Even when Jasper Tudor, the castellan, fled to Ireland, leaving
the ftiture Henry VII in the care of his highly competent captain Sir David ap Jevan ap Einion,
resistance did not collapse and the final surrender was negotiated on very favourable terms.

Field fortifications had featured in a number of battles in the closing stages of the Hundred Years
War, perhaps seen most dramatically in the final defeat and death of the The Earl of Shrewsbury,
Shakespeare’s Bull Talbot, at Castillon in 1453. The Yorkists under Salisbury, finding
themselves outnumbered by Lord Audley’s Lancastrians at Blore Heath in September 1459,
sought to consolidate their already strong defensive position by digging a ditch to cover their rear
and a pallisade to their front. The labouring proved well worth the effort as the Lancastrians
failed to pierce the line, notwithstanding the valour of their repeated assaults and Audley was left
dead upon the field with scores of his followers.

Nearly a year later in the wet July of 1460 it was the Lancastrians who placed their faith in a wet
ditch and timber pallisade studded with guns at Northampton. The unseasonal rainfall flooded
the gunpits and soaked the powder, treachery overcame the fortifications. Warwick, as the victor,
also placed great trust in elaborate and innovative works when preparing to meet Queen
Margaret’s host before St. Albans, scene of his earlier triumph, in February, 1461. A quantity of
fieldworks were dug, augmented by a liberal sprinkling of caltraps, the anti-personnel or rather
anti-equine devices of their and with an array of spiked nets, hinged mantlets and other elaborate
contrivances. Bad intelligence, slow thinking and possibly, more treachery, confounded the
whole complex scheme, turned rather like the later Maginot Line. Despite Lord Montagu’s
energy and valour his brother’s torpor lost the day, though the Lancastrian captain Andrew
Trollope did find himself painfully held on a caltrap, obliging his enemies to come to him, he
boasted of killing fifteen![32]

8) Naval warfare

The late fifteenth century ushered in an era of profound change in naval architecture which saw a
move away from the cumbersome ‘round1 ship of the earlier medieval period toward the sleek
warships of the Elizabethans. The merchantman of the day, only twice as long as it was broad,
fat bellied, slow to steer with fixed square mainsail, was the jack of all trades; for the
conversion to man o’ war timber ‘castles’ were fitted fore and aft. Tactics were usually restricted
to grappling and boarding, missile power being provided by archers. Even ramming was near
impossible and just as perilous for the aggressor. By the fifteenth century the earlier medieval
vessel the ‘cog’ which had been fitted with a steering oar was replaced by the more sophisticated
‘ nef ’ steered by rudder. [33]

At sea, as on land, guns made a difference. There are references dating as far back as the early
1400’s to ordnance aboard ships but naval gunnery was only of limited importance during the
latter years of the century. Initially light pieces were mounted in the twin castles, principally as
anti-personnel devices, rather than as a means of disabling or sinking. To carry the weight of
even lighter pieces the timber castles had to be sturdier than before; soon they were rising to
several tiers and carrying over prow and stem, bristling with cannon, the armament carried round
the internal elevation so that between decks could be swept of enemy boarders, ‘ships of
forecastle.’

Ships of the day feature in the many invasions and alarums of the period, though fiill scale sea
battles were relatively rare. One such occurred during the swashbuckling days of Warwick’s
captaincy of Calais in 1458. As castellan of this most important outpost the Earl commanded a
small fleet, five ‘ships of forecastle,’ three carvels and four pinnaces. On 28th May, hearing of a
much larger hostile Spanish squadron with some sixteen of the larger ships being sighted in the
Channel, he immediately left port, his tiny fleet crammed with archers and billmen. Coming
upon the Spaniards strung out in line the next morning Warwick ordered the attack. With much,
probably inneffectual, cannonading the squadrons collided, longbowmen loosing into the tightly
packed ranks crowding the enemy decks. The battle lasted for most of the day and though he lost
eighty odd men the honours went to the Earl, some two hundred Spanish were reported dead and
six substantial vessels taken. As one survivor enthused ‘As men say, there has not been so great
a battle upon the seas these forty winters.’[34]

We know that Richard in made extensive use of warships during his campaign against the Scots
in 1482 and appears to have been successful in a naval engagement against a Scottish squadron.

9) The experience of battle

Time and much romantic fiction have cast a shroud of pageantry over the harsh realities of
medieval combat, the truth is somewhat less comforting. Though lacking the scale and
devastation of modem wars, devoid of the horrors of machine guns and high explosive, warfare
in the age of the Wars of the Roses was every bit as frightful.

We have seen that most battles began with an archery duel, regular volleys of arrows thudding
into the packed ranks, causing fatal casualties and savage wounds, though the better protected
men at arms might suffer less the ordinary rank and file must have dreaded the hissing rain of
death. It is unlikely that this preliminary phase of the combat would last that long, the files
thinned and disordered, once the order to advance was given the men would move forward, not
at a particularly fast pace for it would be necessary to maintain as much cohesion as possible.
Much would depend upon visibility and the nature of the ground, there are numerous examples
of lines advancing in a mistaken belief of the enemy’s location, the overlapping wings at Barnet
and the Earl of Somerset’s advance at Tewkesbury spring immediately to mind.

Once battle was joined in earnest the combat became an intensly personal affair, a hacking
stamping melee of bills, polearms, sword and axe. Men, half blind in armour, soon assailed by
raging thirst and fatigue would swiftly become disorientated. Few would be killed by a single
blow but a disabling wound, bringing the victim to ground would expose him to to more and
fatal blows, most likely to the head or the dagger thrust through the visor, a horrible, agonising
and by no means speedy end.

Once one side broke leading to a rout casualties would begin to mount, armoured men fleeing
toward their horses tethered a distance away in the baggage park would be easy meat, the less
encumbered foot might run the quicker but many would fall. Mounted pursuers would swoop on
the frantic stragglers, sword and lance doing fearful execution. Abbot Whethamstede, who may
have been an eyewitness graphically chronicles the fate of some of Warwick’s men fleeing from
the disaster and 2nd St. Albans ..............The southern men, who were fiercer at the beginning, were
broken quickly afterwards, and the more quickly because looking back, they saw no one coming
up from the main body of the King's army, or preparing to bring them help, whereupon they
turned their backs on the northern men and fled. And the northern men seeing this pursued them
very swiftly on horseback; and catching a good many of them, ran them throught with their
lances. ’[35]

A recently excavated mass grave on the battle site at Towton has provided a grim insight into the
sheer nastiness of fifteenth century warfare; 37 skeletons were unearthed. Most of these had
suffered a series of horrific head injuries, puncture wounds and calamitous fractures, with
evidence of specific dagger thrusts to the back of the skull, almost surgical in lethal intent, either
the coup de grace on a wounded victim or perhaps a deliberate execution. In either event the
victims head protection would have had to have been removed.[36]

By our standards medical services were rudimentary and unreliable, the preceived presence of
evil humours was the source of much bleeding of patients, quacks cast horoscopes and
prescribed bizarre potions, wounds were cauterised with hot pitch. The use of forms of
aneasthesia, derived mainly from herbs was not, however, unknown and surgical techniques
were perhaps more advanced, at least in the hands of competent practitioners, than may be
imagined. One of the dead from Towton recently exhumed from a grave pit on the site showed
evidence of a prior and massive facial injury which had been skillfully repaired.

Whilst armies did not possess a medical corps per se, each contingent would have surgeons and
doctors in its train and these, like other specialists would sign Contracts of Indenture, sieges
were often concluded with arrangements for the care of wounded and a valuable prisoner had no
value if he succumbed.

As we have seen most fatal injuries were caused by blows to the head as the mute remains from
grave pits testify; the bodies of the English dead from Otterbum, (1388), whose remains were
found beneath the nave of Elsdon church in the nineteenth century, from Visby in Sweden,
(1361) and from Towton in 1461. Slashing and stabbing wounds, though ghastly, were not
always fatal and more victims probably recovered than might be expected, complications such as
peritonitis or blood poisoning, however, were invariably fatal, many injured would be left lying
on the field exposed to the rigours of climate and the tender mercies of scavengers. A
contemporary account from a European traveller, Gerhard von Wessel, recorded the return of
Edward IV’s battered army from Barnet in 1471 ............... many of their followers were wounded
mostly in the face or the lower part of the body, a very pitiable sight. ’ [37]

Campaigns of the period tended to be highly mobile and of relatively short duration which was
undoubtably a major blessing for the participants for, in medieval wars as a whole, far more men
died of disease, particularly dysentery, than from enemy action. Henry V’s tattered band that
stood at Agincourt was but a pale shadow of the host he had brought from England, the ranks
thinned dreadfully by dysentery, rampant in the foetid confines of the siege lines around
Harfleur. The king himself later died from the disease, the final triumph within his grasp, leaving
an infant to rule with all the tribulations that followed.

The late middle ages has been referred to as ‘The Golden Age of Bacteria’[38]; bubonic plague
visited these shores some thirty times between 1348 and 1485, a dozen of these outbreaks were
on a national scale. French mercenaries in the service of Henry Tudor were blamed for
introducing the ‘sweating sickness’ that killed off two mayors and six aldermen of London
within a handspan of days in 1485. [39]

Glossary

Arbalest - A form of crossbow favoured by continental armies.

Ballista - A catapult, in use since Roman times, fires a missile from a powerful bow, tensioned
by a windlass.

Bombard - A large siege gun of indeterminate but heavy calibre.

Brigandine - A form of protective doublet with metal plates sewn in.

Buckler - A small, round shield, usually metal, held by a central grip, used primarily for
partying.

Caltrap - A rather nasty spiked device, intended to maim horses.

Halberd - A polearm with a broad axe blade, much favoured by the Swiss.
Glaive - Also a polearm, not unlike a bill.

Jack - A garment not unlike a brigandine, but stuffed with rags, often sleeveless.

Mangonel - An engine for throwing stones, an arm is held back under tension and the missiles
are released when the arm is released to strike against a crossbar.

Mesnie - A household knight, i.e. of the Lord’s demesne or domain.

Pauldron - A shoulder protection.

Quillons - the bars at the base of the sword hilt, there to protect the hand.

Ricasso - The flat and blunted section of blade immediately below the hilt, intended to be used
in a two handed grip.

Sallet - A fifteenth century helmet with a swept neckguard and narrow visor slit.

Tasset - A form of defence for the thigh.

Trebuchet - A large siege engine with a heavy throwing arm.

Notes

[1] Gillingham. J. ‘The Wars of The Roses,’ London, 1981, pp 76/77. Of those who took part in
this affray, Lord Egremont was killed at Northampton in 1460, Sir Thomas Neville fell on the
field at Wakefield in the same year, his father the Earl of Salisbury was executed after the same
battle and his brother Sir John Neville, later Lord Montague, and Earl of Northumberland, was
slain at Barnet in 1471.

[2] Philip de Commynes, ‘The Memoirs for the Reign of Louis XI, 1461 - 1463, trans. M. Jones,
1972, p. 187.

[3] Haigh P., ‘Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses,’ London, 1995, p.59.

[4] Wise T., ‘The Wars of the Roses, London, 1983, p.22.

[5] Ibid., p.23.

[6] Oman, Sir Charles, ‘The Art of War in the Middle Ages,’ vol.2 London, 1924, p.408.

[7] Wise, p. 24.

[8] Ibid., p.24.

[9] In Act IV, scene 1 [FALSTAFF] ‘If I be not ashamed of my soldiers I am a soused gurnet I
have misused the kings’ press damnably...’

[10] Wise, p.27.

[11] Ibid., p.27.

[12] Ibid., p.27.

[13] Boardman A. W., ‘The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses,’ London, 1998, p.173.

[14] Wise, p.29.

[15] Boardman, p. 167.

Ibid., p. 169.

[17] When a lord sent his horse to the rear and took his place amongst the foot this was seen as
having an effect upon morale as the noble was placing himself in the same degree of peril. In his
definitive, if now somewhat dated biography of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the
‘Kingmaker’ Paul Murray Kendall seeks to defend his subject from assertions that he was
reluctant to expose himself to undue risk by fighting on foot. He seeks to vindicate Warwick
from any charge of faintheartedness by ascribing to him, rather heavyhandedly a more
‘renaissence’ style of command as opposed to the more chivalric manner with its emphasis on
personal glory. In fact Warwick certainly fought on foot at 1st St. Albans, Towton, and finally,
with fatal consequences, at Barnet. Edward Hall paints a rather histrionic scene before Towton,
when Warwick, after acqainting Edward of his repulse from the Aire crossing ‘... and with that
he alighted down and slew his horse with his sword saying ‘let him fly that will, for surely I will
tarry with him that will tarry with me...’ [Halls’ Chronicles ed. H. Ellis, 1809, p.225].

[18] Blair C., ‘European Armour’ London, 1958, p.77.

[19] Norman A.V.B. and D. Pottinger, ‘English Weapons and Warfare, 449 - 1660 London,
1966, p. 114.

[20] Oakeshott R. Ewart, ‘A Knight and his Weapons,’ London, 1964, p.51.

[21] Norman and Pottinger, p. 121-122.

[22] Bartlett C., ‘The English Longbowman 1330 - 1515,’ London, 1995, pp.23-30.

[23] ‘Edward’ is featured in an inventory of 1475; the master of ordnance, John Sturgeon handed
into store at Calais ‘...divers parcels of the Kings’ ordnance and artillery including a bumbardell
[bombard] called ‘The Edward.’ - see Blackmore H.L. ‘The Armouries of The Tower of
London - Ordnance’ HMSO 1976, p. 33. See also, Haigh p.83.

[24] Norman and Pottinger, p. 137.

[25] A survivor from this period, and still to be viewed in Edinburgh Castle is ‘Mons Meg’
which may be considered typical of the heavy guns of the period. Cast in Flanders, around 1460,
the barrel length is 13’2” with a bore of 19.5” - it could discharge a stone ball weighing 549
lbs, and the shot is said to have carried for some two miles, its massive weight necessitated the
use of a crane to lift it from its carriage. [Norman and Pottinger, p. 140], An even larger gun was
cast by the renegade Hungarian smith Urban for the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmet D. Urban had
previously offered his services to the Byzantine emperor Constantine who could not, he decided,
afford such an expensive contractor. The huge piece which Urban cast, and which was finished
by January 1453, measured 26’8” in length and could send a 12cwt ball over a mile with
sufficient residual force for the stone to bury itself 6” into the ground - ironically it was against
the walls of Constantinople that the great gun was first employed - see Runciman, Sir Stephen, ‘
The Fall of Constantinople,’ Cambridge 1965 p. 77/8.

[26] Rogers Col. H.C.B. ‘Artillery Through The Ages,’ London, 1971 p. 19.

[27] Norman and Pottinger, p. 141.

[28] Ibid. p. 142.

[29] Warner P., ‘Sieges of the Middle Ages,’ London, 1968, p. 198.

[30] Ibid., p. 198.

[31] Ibid., p. 199.

[32] Haigh, p.49.

[33] Archibald E.H.H., ‘The Wooden Fighting Ship,’ London, 1968, p.6.

[34] Kendall P. Murray, ‘Warwick The Kingmaker,’ London, 1957, p.44.

[35] H.T. Riley ed., ‘Registrum Abbatis Johannis Whethamstede,’ 1872, vol. 1, pp.388-392.

[36] Boardman, pp. 181-183.

[37] Bartlett, p.51.

[38] Thrupp Sylvia L., ‘The Problem of Replacement Rates in late Medieval English
Population,’ ECHR 2nd series, 18, (1965-1966).

Other Publications by Stuart Press

Stuart Press is the publishing division of Historical Management Associates Ltd. All books may be
ordered by post from Historical Management Associates Ltd, 117 Farleigh Road, Backwell, Bristol.
BS48 3PG. Please enclose an A4 or A5 stamped addressed envelope and payment. Unless otherwise
specified all books are A5 size and relate to the period 1580-1660 or medeieval. For a full catalogue of
nearly 200 titles covering military and civilian topics [mainly food and drink , agriculture and living
history] send an A5 SAE.