[Faction Research] Kingdom of France

[Philippe-IV.]

In this hedge there is but one entry and one issue, where by likelihood four men of arms, as on the road, might ride a-front. At the end of this hedge among vines and thorn-bushes, where no man can go nor ride, are their men of arms all afoot, and they have set in front of them their archers in manner of a harrow, whom it would not be easy to discomfit. 'Well,' said the king, 'what will ye then counsel us to do?' Sir Eustace said: 'Sir, let us all be afoot, except three hundred men of arms, well horsed, of the best in your host and most hardiest, to the intent they somewhat to break and to open the archers, and then your battles to follow on quickly afoot and so to fight with their men of arms hand to hand. This is the best advice that I can give you: if any other think any other way better, let him speak.' The king said: 'Thus shall it be done'

You see... They ignored that archers will slaughter them, if they will go foot. They saw that english knights are dismounted and in "very bushy" defensive position - horse in plates is useless against knight behind the tree :-). Horses were here to scatter archers. But, if you know history of battle of Maupertuis, you know that lack of respect and communication between maréchals lead to disaster...

[Philippe-IV.]

I read as I read, but I could not find anything saying that horses were not covered by anything - chain armor was typical in battle of Maupertuis, rarely with plate that cover head of horse.

And one interesting thing - Edward the Black prince itself does not wear plate armor - he lliked more flexible brigandine or other leather armor.

[Wareg]

From text you've send me I can't say that French ignored English archers. Quite the opposite, king sent the best knights against them, on best armoured horses. Why only 300-maybe cause only they (and their mounts) had enough armours to try to attack archers (similary at Agincourt). Only flank fire of archers, deployed in ''v'' formation, caused that French charge failed - horses were armoured only from front. If best armoured horses had barding only from front, It is quite logical that rest of men-at-arms had less armoured horses.

They saw that english knights are dismounted and in "very bushy" defensive position - horse in plates is useless against knight behind the tree

It is logical, but French started to fight dismounted also in more suitable for cavalry fields - like at battle of Najera (on wide plain). I think English field fortifications is one reason for French to dismount, English fire is another.

They ignored that archers will slaughter them, if they will go foot

I don't think that English archers could slaughter French men-at-arms with shields, mails and plate elements. But, of course, such intensive fire was very tiring, discouraging and made confusion in French ranks.

chain armor was typical in battle of Maupertuis

What is source of that info? I've heard about only one battle (involving Italians, probably Milanese) where significant force of cavalry on iron cladded horses was mentioned.

[Philippe-IV.]

They ignored them - "send 300 men on horses, and archers will be down" ... Completely wrong idea, in Maupertuis and in Azincourt too.
Yes, the front plating was common thing. And I read about using of horse chain armors (or leather armors) in my books about Hundred years war from Czech expert on France history - Jiří Kovařík.
Knights stop using shields when first plate armors were born. Maybe at Maupertuis they still have shields. But shield was unnecessary ballast.
Slaughter - very long march, up to the hill, and in rain of arrows... English foot soldiers had easy job with killing those who survived it.
Arrow from longbow can easily pierce plate armor (except best Milanese and Provence armors), if it strike in right angle - this is reason of french defeat at Azincourt. Small number of horses cannot get to longbowmens without huge damage...

[Philippe-IV.]

But, I like to discuss with you, Wareg. Because in my town there is no one who would be interested in medieval warfare... Finally some challenge to me.

[Wareg]

And I read about using of horse chain armors (or leather armors) in my books about Hundred years war from Czech expert on France history - Jiří Kovařík.

With no doubt they were in use, question is how common they were. Can you send translated fragment of this book/books where horse armours are mentioned?

Knights stop using shields when first plate armors were born. Maybe at Maupertuis they still have shields. But shield was unnecessary ballast.

Even at Agincourt most men-at-arms weren't wealthy enough to buy complete plate armours. Shields decreased risk of blunt trauma but also made warriors unable to use 2 handed anti-armour weapons such poleaxes, but at Poitiers I think that transitional armours still were rare and shields were common.

English foot soldiers had easy job with killing those who survived it

French casualties in battle of Poitiers are estimated of about 2500-both killed or wounded. It was 25-20% of army or less. If you take into account that some them were less armoured infantry and some casualties(I think most) were inflicted by English men-at-arms and Gascon infantry (at least two times more numerous than archers), you will see that English fire wasn't very effective against french men-at-arms, only small percent of thousands of arrows was deadly.

Arrow from longbow can easily pierce plate armor (except best Milanese and Provence armors), if it strike in right angle - this is reason of french defeat at Azincourt

Very risky theory. ''According to Froissart, the English attacked the enemy, especially the horses, with a shower of arrows. Froissart also writes that the French armour was invulnerable to the English arrows, that the arrowheads either skidded off the armor or shattered on impact.'' Many modern tests shows that even rivited mail+aketon was very effective against arrows, even composite crossbow bolts. Famous ''double mail'' was totally resistant to arrows. Plate armours were probably even better cause of shape and flat surface.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html -fine article about mail.
At Agincourt arrows made mainly confusion in French ranks, this coused that they were trampling each other to death in muddly field, others were slaughtered by English poleaxes, hammers and daggers. It is difficult to prove It but I feel (and It isn't only my feeling) that longbow wasn't most deadly weapon in both battles...

But, I like to discuss with you, Wareg. Because in my town there is no one who would be interested in medieval warfare... Finally some challenge to me.

I also like such discussions and I hope that WOTW team will not get annoyed of such prolonged dispute, still with no final, clear conclusions.

[Philippe-IV.]

Hmm... Yes, I agreed that longbow is quite overrated from normal view of common people. I am big fan of crossbows (especially arbalets with levers!) so I hate longbows (if you ask someone of my friends, which thing I hate most in medieval ages, they will say "England, englishmen and longbows" for sure ) and I know, that thing that won the battles against France weren´t longbows, it was french disorganization and "stupidity" in battle plans. But I must recognize, that longbow play some role in both battles - In Maupertuis, they slow down the french attack and do some morale impact. In Azincourt longbows did the same things, in combination with muddy field and french tight close formation. But, in Azincourt, arrows defeated the charging cavalry too (due to small number of charging knights). Knights doesn´t got to hand-to-hand combat...
And efficiency against armor... I read about it somewhere, I thing that it cannot penetrate armor in "frontal hit" but, if fired in right angle and in arc, arrow get very fast speed and with special penetrating head, it may deal some damage for sure.
I will try to translate my books tomorrow .

[Wareg]

I'm waiting for your translated fragments, Philippe-IV.
I've looked through 3300 (!) minatures from http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/, years 1250-1450, England and France. There are hundreds of images of heavy cavalry horses.
Most of horses are unarmoured.
Many have caparisons, but they seems quite thin (not padded)- probably main purpose of them was protective but heraldry.
Some (few) have champrons.
I've found one horse (probably king's or at least prince's cause rider have crown) had full mail armour -English minature, 1250-1260.
Few English horses (circa 1340) have champrons and peytrals (made of metal or cuir bouilli).
Three French horses (1350-55) have peytrals and crinieres.
Few French horses (1400-1415) have champrons and peytrals, 2 mail croupieres, one mail crinere, one plate crinere.
If we take into account that many of knights are kings or heroes and they had best armours available in their times we can see how rare were horse armours.

I've found also one chessman with full mail horse armour.

Summarizing I think that (for France and England) all sergeant's horses should be unarmoured, probalby all ''ordinary'' knight's horses should have padded armours or even thin (not padded) caparisons + champrons - as Lowland Knights now, even 1400-1450 knights - my earlier idea of partial plate for 1400-1450 knights was overstatement.
Only elite forces (bodyguards) should have partial (rarely full) mail for 1300-1350 bodyguard, partial mail or metal/leather peytrals + crineres (rarely+mail croupieres) for 1350-1400 and 1400-1450 bodyguards.

I've found also info that in battle of Nova Croce in 1237 Milanese had 6000 cvalry with iron clad horses - with no doubt number is overstatement although It could mean that mail(?) horse armour was common amongst Milanese knights - maybe such unit (Milanese knights) horse should be armoured in mails armours - with significant decrease of mobility.
Horses with front armours were required for Brurgundan men-at-arms but It was after WOTW timeframe.

[Philippe-IV.]

"At half of XIV. century at the top of feudal warrior class, represented by heavy equiped knights on covered or protected horses, was stabilized type of armor, which we call -combined-. It combine old chainmail elements with new iron plates (but it wasn´t plate armors yet) and with parts from leather or padded material.
...
Two pages about knights armors, helmets, etc.
...
Horse armor doesn´t change very much from earlier era. It was still composed mainly of chainmail, in some cases only from -quilted caparison with cloth cropiere- (I hope that I translated this equipment right...). Plate champron started to protect frontal part of skull."

Very fast translate, so sorry for mistakes ;-)

[Wareg]

It was still composedmainly of chainmail, in some cases only from -quilted caparison with cloth cropiere

It indeed implies that mail horse armour was even more common than padded/cloth. It is interesting what is base of such curious theory. If It is true did why written primary sources remain silent about this and mail or even padded horse armour is such rare in medieval ilustrations (while other equipment is featured rather detailed and accurately)?
Somebody can think that It really doesn't metter and I'm too fanatically rigorous - but I still think that lack of horse armour was one of the most important reasons (beside English field fortifications and fact that one few killed horses were greater and more disorganizing obtaclethan few killed men) which caused that French started to dismount. It was very important change in HYW warfare although It wasn't enough to defeat English.

[Al Willy]

Guys one thing that you must take care of is in that:



Before the 1210 the south-eastern territories (like Foix, Comagnnes, Carcassone, of the actual France, belonged or were vassals of the Catalan-Aragonese Crown, so if you put a campaign before the 1210, you must put this territories whit the Crown. After, in the 1230, the french templars killed the catalan-aragonese king in the Batlle of Muret and the territories became part of the French Kingdom. All this was for the Cathar Crusade (1209–1229).

[Mausolos of Caria]

If I'm not totally wrong, the campaign starts a bit later, though We might see- for exaple- the Comté de Tolouse as a new faction, however, because the map has been cut down to a lesser part of Europe, which hopefully means we will see more little factions. But the WotW team is more busy with the Britannia campaign at the moment, so I'm not even sure if they themselves know what they are going to do!

[Al Willy]

Guys one thing that you must take care of is in that:



Before the 1210 the south-eastern territories (like Foix, Comagnnes, Carcassone, of the actual France, belonged or were vassals of the Catalan-Aragonese Crown, so if you put a campaign before the 1210, you must put this territories whit the Crown. After, in the 1213, the french templars killed the catalan-aragonese king in the Batlle of Muret and the power of the Crown became very reduced, and finally in the 1229 the territories became part of the French Kingdom. All this was by the Cathar Crusade (1209–1229)

[Al Willy]

Excuse-me! I'm used to another forum and i made a mistake publishing again the post!

[xpoing]

I'm trying to edit the scottisch sergeants and turn them into french ones.

Since I can't work with .mesh-files yet I try to make the textures. I've been looking through the main french army-commanders (in wikipedia.fr) and fround these coat of arms from which I try to create the textures. I don't know if it's historical correct (please correct me) but I try to take the colors and patterns of these logos and create my version since I red that the soldiers wore identical colors as their lords.

It would be really great if the WOTW-kru could give me the pictures of the belts & accessoires of the sergeants so that I don't have to "cut" around them

[xpoing]

superb site with all the flags and coa!

http://www.krigsspil.dk/download/download_3.html

[Wareg]

Elite dismounted French knights(1350-1400)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/78731704.jpg/
Dismounted French knights/heavy men-at-arms(1350-1400) - some countries may use spears instead 2 handed swords/falchions
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/63814576.jpg/
Dismounted French lighter men-at-arms/sergeants(1350-1400)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/81770922.jpg/

French mounts for elites - bodyguards(1350-1450)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/46144744.jpg/

Dismounted French elite knights/heavy men-at-arms(1400-1450) - notice that one poleaxe is with spike (best to penetrate armour) to front
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/191/18154741.jpg/
Dismounted French lighter men-at-arms(1400-1450)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/32441771.jpg/

What do you think?

[xpoing]

I think it's huuuuuge

Did you made the pics?

[Wareg]

I think it's huuuuuge

Yes, 3 units of men-at-arms (sergeants, knights, elite) x 2 versions(mounted/dismounted) x 2(3?) upgrades (1330-1350?, 1350-1400, 1400-1450) = 12/18 units (12 new models).
But:
-beside men-at-arms roster there may be only few anothet units (crossbow militia, spearmen, infantry with 2 handed weapons), finished models can be used as base for them
-such roster can be used as base for another factions (sometimes maybe only with some weapon changes)
-men-at-arms were backbone and often majority of French armies during HYW, their armours were changing during that period frequently and significantly so I think It's fair to make them very precisely. Even in MTWII there were 3 tiers of knight's armour in c.1330-1450 timeframe.

Yes, I made them to illustrate my concept of men-at-arms roster for WOTW. I'm waiting for adjudication of WOTW team

[Polycarpe]

Yes, 3 units of men-at-arms (sergeants, knights, elite) x 2 versions(mounted/dismounted) x 2(3?) upgrades (1330-1350?, 1350-1400, 1400-1450) = 12/18 units (12 new models).

Wareg, I must say you are very talented and I'm sincere, these pictures are not only accurate and detailed but also for sure, it will inspires Lord Hamilton for creating their models (WotR game and M&B as well of course).

But:
-beside men-at-arms roster there may be only few anothet units (crossbow militia, spearmen, infantry with 2 handed weapons), finished models can be used as base for them.
-such roster can be used as base for another factions (sometimes maybe only with some weapon changes)

True, most Western European armies were having a certain "standarized backbone" for their armies so of course, many models will be used for other factions but with varied weapons/CoA/colours associated to their factions.

-men-at-arms were backbone and often majority of French armies during HYW, their armours were changing during that period frequently and significantly so I think It's fair to make them very precisely. Even in MTWII there were 3 tiers of knight's armour in c.1330-1450 timeframe.

Agreed, since all knights are Men-at-Arms but not all Men-at-Arms are knights, the armour change was very frequent during this timeframe, of at least 3 times for major changes as we plan for the second campaign.

Yes, I made them to illustrate my concept of men-at-arms roster for WOTW. I'm waiting for adjudication of WOTW team

You have mine for sure, here's a rep that's well deserved!

I'm trying to edit the scottisch sergeants and turn them into french ones.

Since I can't work with .mesh-files yet I try to make the textures. I've been looking through the main french army-commanders (in wikipedia.fr) and fround these coat of arms from which I try to create the textures. I don't know if it's historical correct (please correct me) but I try to take the colors and patterns of these logos and create my version since I red that the soldiers wore identical colors as their lords.

It would be really great if the WOTW-kru could give me the pictures of the belts & accessoires of the sergeants so that I don't have to "cut" around them

Well, since our policy is not sharing our stuff until we complete our campaigns, you can learn and do it by yourself (as you were trying to do), take a look at the Mod workshop section, you may find your answers there.