Slitherine

In both Fog1 and Fog2, it is stated that the ratio of men-at-arms to archers is 1:2. Where does that come from? How does that English style composition mesh with the battle accounts, specifically Bauge, Cravant, Verneuil?

The only documented mention I found is here: https://deremilitari.org/wp-content/upl ... itcham.pdf
on page 14: "They are no doubt to be identified with Guillaume Douglas and his chief lieutenant Thomas Kilpatrick who appear at the head of 150 men at arms and 300 archers." Similarly on page 15.
p 46: "In Bourges, the Scottish army was reviewed on the 24th and its numbers put at 2,500 men at arms and 4,000 archers." All those numbers come from communal archives.

The question is first: how reliable are they? Especially when numbers are round.
The second question is: why did no chronicler point out the preponderance of archers in the Scottish contingent?
The third question, tied to the second: why is there no mention of Scottish archery in battle accounts?

Could it be that, many of those 'archers' were used as garrison rather than in the field?

fogman wrote: The second question is: why did no chronicler point out the preponderance of archers in the Scottish contingent?
The third question, tied to the second: why is there no mention of Scottish archery in battle accounts?

Because it is very, very likely that you haven't read all the primary sources on the topic. No wonder, who would ?

For example, the Chronique dite de Jean Raoulet, about the battle of Verneuil (in Medieval French) :

This is just an example (of which I don't know the reliability). However, searching the primary sources would most likely provide interesting insights on the matter.

Btw, in this thesis (in modern French), the researcher adopts the ratio 1:2 for 1419 on p. 186.
As this thesis was co-supervised by an UK university, the University of St Andrews (Scotland), it can't be wrong

Interesting topic.

I fail to see the relevance of your Raoulet quote since there is no mention of Scottish archers, or their actions at Verneuil. The thesis you refer to does not contain any argument as to why the ratio 1:2 is valid. In fact the numbers quoted refer directly back to the thesis of Ditcham which I quoted in my original post. Ditcham never made such a claim, he merely mentionned that a particular company happened to have 150 men-at-arms and 300 archers. There seems to be an extrapolation here that that company is a microcosm of the whole army, and this is where the 1:2 ratio came from. If so, this is very tenuous. The two main Scottish sources, the Liber Pluscardensis and Scottichronicon, say nothing of this supposedly archers dominated army either.

fogman wrote: I fail to see...

Tant pis pour toi.

thank you for your cogent argumentation.

It is not an argumentation, it is an advice. For the start, I have no opinion on the topic, I just have an advice : read the sources. The primary sources, ie. in their original langage, in their original form if possible, trying to understand, interpret what they mean. And don't take as granted that you have read everything on the subject and that there is only one interpretation of a document or of a word. (And I provided you with a transcription of a medieval document where a sentence could be interpreted (or not) as "the Scotsmen were 1000 MAA and 3000-4000 archers". It seems some historians actually did. And whatever one's own interpretation of it, for the sake of honesty, it would have to be mentioned in a discussion on the Scots in HYW.)

For example, you state : "why did no chronicler point out the preponderance of archers in the Scottish contingent?"
I just ask : Are you sure you have read all the chronicles in full from all the chroniclers and in their original langage ?

That 's all. If you overlook my advice, tant pis pour toi again : you won't have the most historical answer you could have. And dommage pour the readers of your posts.

Btw here is what I mean by "primary sources, ie. in their original langage, in their original form if possible", about the siege of Orléans :



Internet could also be used to advise, not just to argue.

is this comedy hour?
I compiled this on the topic:
https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/bauge-1421-ad
what have you done?

Yet it took me only 30 minutes to find a primary source that can be interpreted as contradicting your statement. Imagine if you took a week or a month on primary sources you haven't read yet… you may get a totally fresh answer, or not. That’s all I say. (No harm intended. Just the historian's precision.)

As for what I have done : never enough, far from enough. But I don't despair.

fogman wrote: In both Fog1 and Fog2, it is stated that the ratio of men-at-arms to archers is 1:2. Where does that come from?

You will find a list of Scots salaried by the Dauphin of France to hold Orleans in 1428 in the French Royal treasury records, maintained by Hémon Raguier.

Here is an extract of these records. On each line, the name of a Scottish Captain. In the first column, the number of MAA in his company. In the second one, the number of archers. In total, 169 MAA and 400 archers, that is a ratio of 1:2.37.



(Here is seemingly an interesting dissertation (in French) that deals among other things with that matter (from p. 1) : https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5544859x)

fogman wrote: The third question, tied to the second: why is there no mention of Scottish archery in battle accounts?

Jean de Wavrin writes in his record of the battle of Verneuil he participated in (in Anciennes chroniques d'Angleterre, t. 1, p. 265) :



... meaning "The archers of England and the Scots, who were with the French, started shooting arrows at each other..."

Here is the translation in English of the extract by Wavrin about Verneuil, as in A Collection of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain, Now Called England, n°40, Vol. 3 :



Readable here, p. 75.

That there are archers on both sides is not debated, what is debated is the ratio 1:2 that comes from extrapolating from one company to the whole army. Again, if that is the case, why don't the Scots, English, and French not point it out? You have cited exactly ONE source that says there are Scottish archers firing at the English at Verneuil. Hwo do you deduct from that that there are twice as marny Scottish archers as men-at-arms?

I for one found your last post a bit muddled. However :
- I gave you a friendly advice : read original sources.
- I gave you examples (meaningful ones) of what you could find if you read those original sources. Try and analyse those sources with intellectual honesty.
- I can't do anything more for you, given my available time. Unfortunately. I can't do the job for you.

To tell someone YOU DON'T KNOW to 'read the sources', someone who HAS PRODUCED a body of work based solely on primary sources is the height of dumb condescension. The crux of the matter of simple: where is that mysterious source I haven't read that yields the scientific 2:1 rule? You base your entire argument on something that may exist but that you yourself can't locate.


------------------------------------------
Athos needs not apply here.

I have yet to see a single documented argument for the 1:2 ratio, only 'conclusion' that we are all supposed to believe as gospel. There was a thread not long ago about Scottish light cavalry and it was argued that although they undoubtedly existed, there was no battle record of them. The evidence in battle of a Scottish army dominated by archers is non existent.

The Scottichronicon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotichronicon) has a LOT to say about English archers at Verneuil, but nothing about Scottish archers:

"The number of dead on all sides, English and the others, was 6,000, with as many English killed as were Scots and French. It is said that it was the vain arrogance and reckless haste of the Scots which was the reason for their fall and ruin. When they had four times the number of the English, they rushed against their enemies neglecting the principles of sensible military practice; then after some fighting the English archers were pierced by Scottish spears and as one man took to flight. On observing this the English lancers would for their part have surrendered had it not been that a little before the start of the battle they had learned for certain that the duke of Touraine had had it proclaimed that there would be certain penalties if anyone took Englishmen as prisoners, and that they were to be killed indiscriminately without any [hope of] ransom. It was another misfortune that when a large and fearsome band of Lombards (their war horses protected just with broom, while they themselves were splendidly armed) observed the English archers fleeing from the fight, they quickly forced them to return to the field. These Englishmen, seeing that flight was now out of the question, took their lives in their own hands. They sent such a vast cloud of sharp spears and arrows against their enemies that those at the receiving end were both frightened and distressed. Hence the reluctant turn-around by the archers was an unfortunate turn for the party on the other side, an irreparable misfortune, a deadly destruction." (Book XV)

I have seen it argued that the Scots in France was a heavily archers force because the French needed them to offset the English archery advantage. Yet this is what Thomas Basin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Basin) wrote :

"The French king assembled for his service a great help from the Scots, who indeed were warlike and strong, but were wont to be too rash and proud. There were about ten thousand combatants, whose chief leaders were the Earl of Douglas and the Earl of Buchan. There was also a large number of French soldiers, but most of them without discipline and military order, and even worse from the point of view of the number of weapons, badly equipped. Their leaders were the duke of Alencon, Jean, count of Aumale and several other barons and captains from the kingdom of France itself. And because the English, fighting with their archers, had often prostrated the French, it was believed that providence would come their aid, if it was opposed to the forces of English archers four hundred or five hundred lances of the Italians. The latter who in arms, as well the men, as well as their horses, being well protected, are in no way afraid of the blows of the arrows, and would burst upon the English foot archers, the shield of their army, and disturb their order with lances." (Rerum Gestarum Temporibus Karoli Septimi)

The French have thought about how to counter the English archers, and their answer wasn't the Scots. If the latter were an archers army in the English mould, nobody noticed on the battlefield!

So the question is one of nomenclature. Does Scottish 'archers' have the same meaning as English 'archers'? Many communal documents undoubtedly recorded a great number of Scottish archers (see OP). They may well be equipped with a bow but are they primarily bowmen? Were their bow mostly used in skirmish/siege/garrison duties, which is 99,99% of the time? In other words, it is a secondary weapon: in battle the Scots were just not trained to use it in mass formation like the English so they reverted to mass shock tactics which they know.

fogman wrote: I have yet to see a single documented argument for the 1:2 ratio, only 'conclusion' that we are all supposed to believe as gospel.

Yet I provided you with a source (you seem not to know) about the make-up of 7 Scottish compagnies (in a royal list) that seems to confirm this ratio. Are you unable to read and understand documents or are you just dishonest ?
There might be other sources that confirm it. Where ? In primary sources. Research !!!

This source was :

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 9:11 am

fogman wrote: In both Fog1 and Fog2, it is stated that the ratio of men-at-arms to archers is 1:2. Where does that come from?

You will find a list of Scots salaried by the Dauphin of France to hold Orleans in 1428 in the French Royal treasury records, maintained by Hémon Raguier.

Here is an extract of these records. On each line, the name of a Scottish Captain. In the first column, the number of MAA in his company. In the second one, the number of archers. In total, 169 MAA and 400 archers, that is a ratio of 1:2.37.



(Here is seemingly an interesting dissertation (in French) that deals among other things with that matter (from p. 1) : https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5544859x)

As for the fact that Scottish archers wouldn't be over-cited and detailed in French battle reports : no wonder, only French MAA mattered to them.

fogman wrote: So the question is one of nomenclature. Does Scottish 'archers' have the same meaning as English 'archers'? Many communal documents undoubtedly recorded a great number of Scottish archers (see OP). They may well be equipped with a bow but are they primarily bowmen? Were their bow mostly used in skirmish/siege/garrison duties, which is 99,99% of the time? In other words, it is a secondary weapon: in battle the Scots were just not trained to use it in mass formation like the English so they reverted to mass shock tactics which they know.

There seems to be a consensus among Historians that the Scottish archers were... archers and participated in battles as archers. And Jean de Wavrin confirms it (see above).
Your hypothesis is supported by no evidence, no data which you have to provide in front of a consensus. Because they read the sources.

Moreover, there's no reason to think that what Hémon Raguier call archers in the French Royal treasury records of 1428 are not... archers, ie bearers and users in battle of bows.

Btw Primary sources don’t come down only to battle reports written by chroniclers but are also Royal treasury records and any documents written at that time. So I remain sure you haven’t read all the French archives on the subject (that are not all translated in English). The proof with Raguier’s document.

fogman wrote: The Scottichronicon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotichronicon) has a LOT to say about English archers at Verneuil, but nothing about Scottish archers:
(...)
I have seen it argued that the Scots in France was a heavily archers force because the French needed them to offset the English archery advantage. Yet this is what Thomas Basin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Basin) wrote :
(...)

The writer of the Scottichronicon wasn't at Verneuil during the battle if I am not mistaken while Thomas Basin was a 12 year old pupil studying at Paris at that time.
≠
Jean de Wavrin who fought at Verneuil among other battles testifies to the presence of Scottisch archers fighting as archers in the excerpt quoted above.

Moreover the absence of any mention of Scottisch archers in a text is not the evidence of the absence of Scottisch archers on the battlefield.

fogman wrote: To tell someone (...) to 'read the sources'(...) is the height of dumb condescension.

It is not a "condescension" as it is a rigour I apply to myself. (Hsitorical riguor is important.)
But I concede it must be "dumbness", to keep on trying to convince you. I'll try to be smarter.

Btw if you had been interested in French archives and could have read French, you would have been interested not only by the make-up of 7 Scottish compagnies in the folllowing excerpt but also by the start (and even more by the continuation) of the sentence underlined in red :