love it, as always, and yes i agree it is very likely they were mounted. in the wars of the roses there are loads of occasions where we have mounted work. Obviously some can hardly be denied, like Bosworth, But even Edgecoat Moor has probably one or two cavalry charges in it. I am diggin though the wars of the rises material, to see if i can find the number of cavalry actions in the battles (not mentioning the rest of the wars) in total... probably there will be so many vague possibilities, so many probables and so many definites. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is more than people expect.
The pattern to me seems that they didn't have specific cavalry or infantry divisions, which confuses any military historian post-new-model-army. Of course its logical that the army had a different construction, because otherwise what did the new model army actually do?
@@ZacharyEvans this goes for pretty much all medieval armies. The 'hommes d'armes' or 'reisige' or 'gewapende' or 'men-at-arms' were generally considered to be 'full armoured guys that turn up on horses good enough to be used for close combat' which could then be used as heavy infantry or cavalry as needed. I think the ambiguity is not just reporting, but the doctrine of the day, really. similarly the archers were often mounted and used as light cavalry in the napoleonic sense, that they did reconaissance and all that (too). in the German wars and 'feuds' (often involving forces of 2000 or so men a side, but the duration of the campaign was hardly over 3 weeks) the infantry and artillery is often completely left behind and the cavalry decide the whole campaign before the artillery and infantry even turn up, (often, by no means always) even taking castles before the defenders know they need to defend. This might be tied to the terrain as well, as German roads are a lot more steep at times, the rougher the landscape, the more this distancing of cav from inf seems to happen. Yet this devision seems to happen at edgecoat moor the same, where the haste of getting to the battle means the re-enforcements arrive in two sections and it is presumed this is because one section was mounted and the other was not. but the sources are often very unclear indeed
There is no denying that the men-at-arms were mounted to travel, the question is if they remained mounted when they got there. You might drive from London to Tewkesbury, but we also assume that you will park your car and leave it when you get there. In the case of watching over a wood when you don't even know if the enemy will use that route I should imagine that mobility is the key so I can't see them unmounted in that situation.
Mounted infantry are a different thing, really. They can fight as cavalry, but their horses are likely not stellar, and they may not even be combat-ready. That said, we don't know either way if these guys were footmen, mounted infantry, or cavalry.
More than 200 seems very logical. Even if only half of the retinue had a squire that’s up to 300. It would be a likely assumption in period that only the men-at-arms themselves were counted and some number of squires were present. Your point about the unit remaining mobile and able to react / redeploy were spot on, I was thinking those things as soon as the question arose.
Very smart, I kinda think, in a general sense, spears means foot/infantry. I will definitely think about this in the future. It could be that sometimes Lances were referred to as spears at this point, after all, that’s what a lance was to start with,. It’s also noteworthy, that all historical paintings, I just looked at, of that battle, showed significant numbers of calvary, on both sides. (Note: edited to add punctuation.)
Did the English organize themselves into "lances" at this time, like folks in Italy or other parts of the continent did? Would that make a "spear" equivalent to a lance (a small military unit with a man at arm's, a squire a page and some archers)?
I think the author must have presumed we understood that the soldiers would have pillioned behind their wives, who would then have ridden the horses away in order to pick up the children from school. Otherwise, it's possible that he literally meant just spears. These could have been put into the ground in an intimidating fashion, with long strings tied to them. Once they'd served their purpose in defending the woodland, they could have been be pulled back into battle at breakneck speed. If they did need to be reinforced by soldiers, the men could use the same string to pull themselves toward the spears and by using all four limbs (two running, two pulling), they could theoretically equal the speed of an unburdened horse.
Very interesting thought. Although battlefield doctrine and battlefield records from the 100 years war seem to point to the fact that English MAA indeed fought on foot. This doesnt mean they did not campaign/redeploy mounted though.
Even if they preferred to fight on foot, it doesn’t mean they also didn’t fight mounted. For example, Italian men-at-arms preferred to be mounted, but would dismount and fight on foot when the situation arose.
I think they were sent as cavalry up to the hill/woods but because of the terrain at the time of the battle was boggy and full of ditches and marshes they dismounted and charged on foot. As charging on horseback in these conditions would be suicide. Also there is no evidence on the battlefield or in the bloody meadows to suggest any horses were present. So I agree with half you theory. Also thank you for covering this battle I’ve wanted someone to do a vid like this for ages! 👍🏻
@@airnt fair point but even so I’d think it highly unlikely of them to have charged on horses over 20ft ditches, boggy ground, in woods and streams. I recon they charged on foot.
It depends where they charged. Charging along one of the roads would be very possible, and the broken land would make it difficult for the enemy to spot them before they attacked. What we know is that Edward was concerned by the prospect of a cavalry ambush.
@@ethanhigley2845 the other issue is that , once distached from the main army, dismounting a few hundred riders is quite an undertaking. this begs the question what the better choice is Who is holding the horses? so you could dismount a part of your force and leave the rest behind with the horses, but the force was kinda small compared to who they attacked. the other thing is... terrain is an impediment... but is it any less of an impediment to a fully armoured man on foot? fully armoured wading through a ditch? or riding across it? really marshy ground is not really good for a heavily armoured man as we saw in Azincourt...the same ground the (under strength) cavalry charge managed to maneuvre swiftly across (although the attack did not go very well, it had a degree of succes and the mentions of being bogged down are specific to the infantry assault). The described terrain difficulties, if they were present at the time, if we understand the postition of the battle on the lay of the land correctly, would still air towards staying on horseback in my mind. And yes an conveinient avenue maight still have been available. The disproportionate effect of this attack in terms of numbers involved begs some explanation over and above coming from behind. A mounted charge would explain the force multiplier, in particular if they had their backs turned flanking the yorkists.
@@airnt maybe but what about the woods? Riding 200+ horses through a rather dense wood in a charge would be nearly impossible. They say the wood in Tewkesbury that remains is similar to that of the time. I have been there many times myself with this exact horse theory trying to prove it wrong or right. Unfortunately we just do not know the full details but I know if I was leading a charge to quickly stop the Lancastrian force flanking through woods I would ,for convenience and quickness, dismount and charge on foot to have maximum impact. The time of year of the battle ,may, means the trees and plants would have been in blossom and overgrown ,as medieval people did not have lawn mowers, so riding a horse through that especially at that time of year is extremely tricky and easier on foot. The horses were most likely tied to some trees or something similar. Horses were almost definitely present at the battle of Tewkesbury and we know this because Edward caught up with the Lancastrian force very quickly but I do not think they were used for fighting.
With the common weapon being a bill it makes sense you wouldn't want to use them in battle, but why wouldn't you still use them as transport? Or scouts? Or harassing forces? Mobility is key in warfare and there's been use of effectively mounted infantry for a very long time.
Bills aren't the super anti-cavalry weapon that some people would suggest. They work well enough as a poor-person's pollaxe, but they lack the range to really blunt a cavalry charge. Some of us attend Tewkesbury, but as foot-troops. The cost of bringing horses is prohibitive and as the festival doesn't charge an entrance fee they are unable to get the costs back from punters. It's a shame, but it does mean we can enjoy the festival in a much less stressful manner.
@@ZacharyEvans While not amazing anti-cavalry weapons they don't need to be, just "good enough" to keep them off and to protect archers/gunners. Otherwise there is the question of why not use cavalry then? Yeah took it as they couldn't afford it, plus I guess would also mean having to rearrange a number of areas to give enough space for the horses. It does seem a bit packed (which is great to see so many groups coming!)
"For those of you who don't know, the M25 is sometimes a road, sometimes a parking lot, that goes around London."
^That line though! Fantastic
love it, as always, and yes i agree it is very likely they were mounted.
in the wars of the roses there are loads of occasions where we have mounted work.
Obviously some can hardly be denied, like Bosworth,
But even Edgecoat Moor has probably one or two cavalry charges in it.
I am diggin though the wars of the rises material, to see if i can find the number of cavalry actions in the battles (not mentioning the rest of the wars) in total...
probably there will be so many vague possibilities, so many probables and so many definites.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it is more than people expect.
The pattern to me seems that they didn't have specific cavalry or infantry divisions, which confuses any military historian post-new-model-army.
Of course its logical that the army had a different construction, because otherwise what did the new model army actually do?
@@ZacharyEvans this goes for pretty much all medieval armies.
The 'hommes d'armes' or 'reisige' or 'gewapende' or 'men-at-arms' were generally considered to be 'full armoured guys that turn up on horses good enough to be used for close combat' which could then be used as heavy infantry or cavalry as needed. I think the ambiguity is not just reporting, but the doctrine of the day, really.
similarly the archers were often mounted and used as light cavalry in the napoleonic sense, that they did reconaissance and all that (too).
in the German wars and 'feuds' (often involving forces of 2000 or so men a side, but the duration of the campaign was hardly over 3 weeks) the infantry and artillery is often completely left behind and the cavalry decide the whole campaign before the artillery and infantry even turn up, (often, by no means always) even taking castles before the defenders know they need to defend.
This might be tied to the terrain as well, as German roads are a lot more steep at times, the rougher the landscape, the more this distancing of cav from inf seems to happen.
Yet this devision seems to happen at edgecoat moor the same, where the haste of getting to the battle means the re-enforcements arrive in two sections and it is presumed this is because one section was mounted and the other was not.
but the sources are often very unclear indeed
Richard III's charge at Bosworth seems to argue that at least part of his army was cavalry.
There is no denying that the men-at-arms were mounted to travel, the question is if they remained mounted when they got there. You might drive from London to Tewkesbury, but we also assume that you will park your car and leave it when you get there. In the case of watching over a wood when you don't even know if the enemy will use that route I should imagine that mobility is the key so I can't see them unmounted in that situation.
Mounted infantry are a different thing, really. They can fight as cavalry, but their horses are likely not stellar, and they may not even be combat-ready. That said, we don't know either way if these guys were footmen, mounted infantry, or cavalry.
I’ve read this more so than the English straight up didn’t use cavalry.
"The M25 is sometimes a road, sometimes a parking lot" 😆
God damnit, I haven't thought about being stuck on the M25 for hours in years. Good times.
Oh boy, the M25.
More than 200 seems very logical. Even if only half of the retinue had a squire that’s up to 300. It would be a likely assumption in period that only the men-at-arms themselves were counted and some number of squires were present. Your point about the unit remaining mobile and able to react / redeploy were spot on, I was thinking those things as soon as the question arose.
Very smart, I kinda think, in a general sense, spears means foot/infantry. I will definitely think about this in the future.
It could be that sometimes Lances were referred to as spears at this point, after all, that’s what a lance was to start with,.
It’s also noteworthy, that all historical paintings, I just looked at, of that battle, showed significant numbers of calvary, on both sides.
(Note: edited to add punctuation.)
Did the English organize themselves into "lances" at this time, like folks in Italy or other parts of the continent did? Would that make a "spear" equivalent to a lance (a small military unit with a man at arm's, a squire a page and some archers)?
I believe so. Lance and spear appear to be thoroughly interchangeable words that have multiple meanings.
Medieval sources are so frustrating
I think the author must have presumed we understood that the soldiers would have pillioned behind their wives, who would then have ridden the horses away in order to pick up the children from school.
Otherwise, it's possible that he literally meant just spears. These could have been put into the ground in an intimidating fashion, with long strings tied to them. Once they'd served their purpose in defending the woodland, they could have been be pulled back into battle at breakneck speed. If they did need to be reinforced by soldiers, the men could use the same string to pull themselves toward the spears and by using all four limbs (two running, two pulling), they could theoretically equal the speed of an unburdened horse.
You sir, need a strong coffee and a sit down....
@@robbikebob I'm allergic. Shame on you.
My favourite battle and place in the world!!!!!!!
Very interesting thought. Although battlefield doctrine and battlefield records from the 100 years war seem to point to the fact that English MAA indeed fought on foot. This doesnt mean they did not campaign/redeploy mounted though.
Even if they preferred to fight on foot, it doesn’t mean they also didn’t fight mounted. For example, Italian men-at-arms preferred to be mounted, but would dismount and fight on foot when the situation arose.
That's like saying roman equetai didn't fight mounted because the romans preferred infantry.
I think they were sent as cavalry up to the hill/woods but because of the terrain at the time of the battle was boggy and full of ditches and marshes they dismounted and charged on foot.
As charging on horseback in these conditions would be suicide. Also there is no evidence on the battlefield or in the bloody meadows to suggest any horses were present. So I agree with half you theory. Also thank you for covering this battle I’ve wanted someone to do a vid like this for ages! 👍🏻
what evidence would these horses leave?
You mean like lost shoes or something?
Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
@@airnt fair point but even so I’d think it highly unlikely of them to have charged on horses over 20ft ditches, boggy ground, in woods and streams. I recon they charged on foot.
It depends where they charged. Charging along one of the roads would be very possible, and the broken land would make it difficult for the enemy to spot them before they attacked. What we know is that Edward was concerned by the prospect of a cavalry ambush.
@@ethanhigley2845 the other issue is that , once distached from the main army, dismounting a few hundred riders is quite an undertaking.
this begs the question what the better choice is Who is holding the horses?
so you could dismount a part of your force and leave the rest behind with the horses, but the force was kinda small compared to who they attacked.
the other thing is... terrain is an impediment... but is it any less of an impediment to a fully armoured man on foot?
fully armoured wading through a ditch? or riding across it?
really marshy ground is not really good for a heavily armoured man as we saw in Azincourt...the same ground the (under strength) cavalry charge managed to maneuvre swiftly across (although the attack did not go very well, it had a degree of succes and the mentions of being bogged down are specific to the infantry assault).
The described terrain difficulties, if they were present at the time, if we understand the postition of the battle on the lay of the land correctly, would still air towards staying on horseback in my mind. And yes an conveinient avenue maight still have been available.
The disproportionate effect of this attack in terms of numbers involved begs some explanation over and above coming from behind. A mounted charge would explain the force multiplier, in particular if they had their backs turned flanking the yorkists.
@@airnt maybe but what about the woods?
Riding 200+ horses through a rather dense wood in a charge would be nearly impossible.
They say the wood in Tewkesbury that remains is similar to that of the time. I have been there many times myself with this exact horse theory trying to prove it wrong or right. Unfortunately we just do not know the full details but I know if I was leading a charge to quickly stop the Lancastrian force flanking through woods I would ,for convenience and quickness, dismount and charge on foot to have maximum impact. The time of year of the battle ,may, means the trees and plants would have been in blossom and overgrown ,as medieval people did not have lawn mowers, so riding a horse through that especially at that time of year is extremely tricky and easier on foot. The horses were most likely tied to some trees or something similar. Horses were almost definitely present at the battle of Tewkesbury and we know this because Edward caught up with the Lancastrian force very quickly but I do not think they were used for fighting.
With the common weapon being a bill it makes sense you wouldn't want to use them in battle, but why wouldn't you still use them as transport? Or scouts? Or harassing forces? Mobility is key in warfare and there's been use of effectively mounted infantry for a very long time.
Also didn't realise you went Tewkesbury, is often said the thing missing from the amazing festival is Destrier
Bills aren't the super anti-cavalry weapon that some people would suggest. They work well enough as a poor-person's pollaxe, but they lack the range to really blunt a cavalry charge.
Some of us attend Tewkesbury, but as foot-troops. The cost of bringing horses is prohibitive and as the festival doesn't charge an entrance fee they are unable to get the costs back from punters. It's a shame, but it does mean we can enjoy the festival in a much less stressful manner.
@@ZacharyEvans While not amazing anti-cavalry weapons they don't need to be, just "good enough" to keep them off and to protect archers/gunners. Otherwise there is the question of why not use cavalry then?
Yeah took it as they couldn't afford it, plus I guess would also mean having to rearrange a number of areas to give enough space for the horses. It does seem a bit packed (which is great to see so many groups coming!)