Bill business. Business of giving the business. Bill business. And business is open. Bill business is banging. Bill business of the business bill. Byll*
One thing worth mentioning with written sources is that written language and spoken language are two distinct things that can often have their own quirks. It could be the case that the term billman was being used in spoken vernacular before it was written down, but obviously theres no evidence for that. (I mention this because of other claims like Shakespeare inventing loads of words when more likely he was the first to write down words already in use in the spoken vernacular)
In 1623, 2000 bills arrived in Virginia from London to re-equip the Virginia Company after the March 1622 Powhatan attack. They ended up being cut up and turned into tobacco agricultural tools.
Matt, it is absolutely uncanny, almost frightening, your ability to provide these in-depth discussions to pressing questions I did not know I had. Keep up the great work and I thank you for it. Cheers!
Flodden 1513 supports the notion that bills were prevalent in English armies in the early 16th century. Multiple accounts from that same year mention bills & their importance in the English victory. Thomas Ruthal did indicate both bills & halberds were present.
I watched a documentary on the battle of Flodden where this was referred to as 'the brown bill' I often wonder whether this has any influence on the name for the 'brown bess' musket. Reply
Who else hoped at 4 minutes he was going to say: "There were 2 types of infrantry, bowmen who's job it was to shoot arrows, and the other type, who's job it was to catch them with their body"?
Great video. Matt how about a video on why the bill was so dominant? I think a video in general on polearm use(how specific ones were used when and where) and evolution would be outstanding. Yes I ask for the moon! 😂
I think Lindybeige did a video covering it ias part of polearms a in general. Basically a leverage is really useful, so everyone built long sticks that had a hook, spike, and blade.
@@silentdrew7636He probably means why Bills are dominant over spears or pikes, which were often considered the most dominant (and costless) arms on field
@@wolfensniper4012 Culture indeed probably plays a role in it, for example the Goedendag is very prominent in Flemish units in the late medieval and early Renaissance, but was not found much elsewhere. In the case of the bill, Italian and English units really liked them. Cavalry with two-handed flails were more common in Slavic Eastern Europe. For another example, despite its cost-effectiveness, slings (one-handed) were not very common among medieval European skirmishers. And polearms, like all weapons, are part of a larger equation of armor, armament, terrain, tactics, and strategy. If chainmail (edit: plate, bills are quite good against chainmail) is more common in a given culture, they probably would not be as inclined towards the bill over other polearms, and the prevalence and type of cavalry and heavy infantry given the terrain, culture, and level of wealth/technology will also make a significant impact. But the other side of it a Billhook or Goedendag is really, really close in cost to a short or long spear, depending on the length, and are vastly more flexible ... in particular, bills and Geodendags have far stronger responses to mounted and/or armored combatants than a spear, or even a pike. Similarly, javelins were almost completely supplanted by war darts. I think it wouldn't be fair to the spear to exclude bills completely from that category. I would say that, essentially speaking, a bill is a hybrid spear and sword-spear (like a naginata), while a Goedendag is simply a heavy short-spear that can club.
I was involved in War of The Roses re-enactment during the 1990's. Undoubtedly more historical research has been carried out since (one of the many reasons I watch your channel). We had combined force of pike, halberd, partisan etc interspersed to fight at distance obviously followed by sidearm/tertiary weapon. Lots of fun back in the day.. especially Tewkesbury field.
As a german I always thought the english bill to be a kind of what we call "Hellebarde" (halbert), but it really is a perfect example of what in german is called a "Rossschinder" (translates to: "Horse flayer")
Bill and later Billhook is because it has a curved short blade (and then later also a hook) from ancient words meaning Axe Helberd is from a similar route meaning broadaxe with handle ... All are a blade on a long pole ... The German Wikipedia article for a Rossschinder is illustrated with a drawing ....labelled 'Bill'
You can go VERY deep analyzing the English terms for polearms. I kind of like the German preference for saying what a thing is used for. A bill hook was, as far as I can tell, a wartime adaption of the agricultural pruning hook, which then had it's backside sharpened to add a bit of glaive functionality/
@@yobgodababua1862 Actually, if you look at a Yorkshire bill, a hedging tool, it has the hooked blade on one side and a sharpened flat blade on the other to use like an axe. Thus the only thing needed would be to add a spike to the end. The hooked blade is great to sned branches and cut/partially cut through the thinner material (also when coppicing) while the straight edge on the other side is great if you need to fell a tree or cut through thicker material.
@@bonnie115 Specifically, the hook blade has a fairly powerful draw cut. Not hard to believe most examples I’ve seen could cut a three inch tree in one stroke.
@@bonnie115Yeah, there's a Kentish bill which is very similar. Modern billhooks are much smaller, but still pretty fearsome. It's easy to see how they were adapted into weapons.
Interesting. I was always under the impression that the war bill evolved from expediency, i.e. from attaching an agricultural bill to the end of a pole. They subsequently found that it was an extremely effective weapon. Having used a Yorkshire bill - a hedging tool - I can easily see how it would recommend itself to lopping heads as well as branches! The Dutch word for axe, by the way, is 'bijl', which was also spelled 'byl' in the old days.
They were only dominant when they got off their four legged transport. Also only dominant when being attacked, as an offensive weapon it was not ideal. When forced on the offensive ie. Forminguy and Castellon the longbow had little influence. Outside Orlean 1428 the English army left the field rather than attack in spite of Falstaffs army being a day away.
@@scholagladiatoriaIf you do get him on and he asserts that archers primarily shot at close range, could you please challenge him on how 16th century sources (except for Monluc during one skirmish) all assume that archers will be engaging from maximum range, that some medieval art *does* show archers shooting elevated during a field battle and that other artwork shows them shooting flat across the 800m+ distance of the Blanchetaque and perhaps there really are stylistic factors at play in medieval art?
We have to remember a big reason why the Mongols invaded europe is because they thought they had found their equals. After all, the Hungarians and Byzantines and Rus' were famous across the rest of europe for horse archery.
This is one of the best videos I've ever seen you. The breakdown of how you utilized sources was amazingly useful to hear. Has opened up a whole new way to research the Wars of the Roses. Thank you.
Do you have an idea why glaives were so popular weapons during that period? Afterall, they don't seem to be suited for use against armoured opponents, and given that by the middle of the 15th century, the majority of foot soldiers wore extensive armour, it makes me question the utility of such a weapon. Maybe their purpose was to combat horses?
@@henriknemeth3370 That's a good question. I am afraid I don't know. The men at the Bridport Muster are not well armoured though. It's usually helmet, or helmet and jack for the most part. Some have mail shirts. A few have full harness. A surprisingly large number have nothing.
The problem with using the Bridport Muster Roll as an example of the prevalence of bills during the Wars of the Roses is that only 2 of the 196 men listed have bills, so the smallest proportion (7%) of all types of pollarm listed in the Roll, and the lowest proportion of any weapon recorded there. There are in fact six times more soldiers with glaives (a specific and distinct type of pollarm) than with bills in the Bridport list.
"London is the capital of Great Britain. It is situated on the banks of the river Thames...". Thank you for decades old flashback from my English lessons in my school, Matt. I googled and found out fun fact: modern day Ukrainian school students learn the same text I learned by heart 20+ years ago for some reason.
"For some reason" because the language is the same? And London is still the capital and still on the Thames? What kind of a ridiculous attitude you have
Dear Matt could you do a video on how exactly medieval armies organization and chain of command worked? I as a layman cant find many good sources on this. Edit: Specifically stuff like who would actually command a company of archers or spearmen in the hundred years war? As all the knights and lords would presumably go off to fight on horseback
Andrew Ayton tackles this in his chapter on the English army in "The Battle of Crécy, 1346". The infantry raised by Commissions of Array were divided into vintaines (20 men) and centuries (100 men), each led by a vintenar and a centenar. Vintenars were usually wealthier members of the community, while centenars were either just below the level of wealth that would require them to be a man-at-arms or, sometimes, men-at-arms. They most likely fought together as a unit and were attached to a specific "battle". Most likely centenars received orders from whoever was in charge of the battle and passed those orders through. The mounted archers serving in a retinue are much harder to work out, but Ayton proposes that they fought in concert with the men-at-arms, screening them before the battle and then retreating to fight in the back lines or, in battles without foot archers, to the flanks.
Ooh good one, not only how it was done in England, but perhaps how things differed in different lands/cultures. I think when we imagine it we have this very modern structure in mind, but frankly from what little I have looked into, it was a lot more haphazard than we might expect. Some more concrete details would be lovely, for how command both on the field and at peace might have worked as a working chain of command/process.
One of the things that popular history neglects is any discussion of the tactics, strategy and leaders employing pole armed forces with greater or lesser effect. Did Bills become the default for some event or commander's preference?
One explanation that I don't think anyone has posted yet is that the the description of billmen only becomes necessary when English armies have melee infantry units using something else. So 'billmen' as a description of units appear about the time that pike becomes the predominant melee infantry weapon in Continental Europe and they start to turn up in English armies (initially as mercenary units). Suddenly you need to distinguish between pike-armed units and the other melee infantry units which are only carrying shorter cut-and-thrust polearms. Prior to this, there are simply archers and the ones not carrying longbows. Indeed it would have been confusing to have called them billmen, because some of the archers might be carrying bills and the 'billmen' are carrying all sorts of different polearms.
I don't think that really holds up for two reasons: 1) As far as I am aware, few medieval or renaissance armies differentiated units with polearms like that. They basically viewed a polearm as a polearm and just threw them together (I am sure there are exceptions especially around Royal guards etc, but for the bulk of the rank and file soldiers). 2) If that was a thing, that would presumably have been an issue from the start when bills were a smaller part of the polearms before they became dominant.
@@88porpoise Pike are different from other polearms, they require different drill and tactics to work. You can't just lump soldiers with pike into a unit and expect it to work, in the way that other polearms might. So pike units are called exactly that, even though these units also contain soldiers armed with other polearms. Once pike units are a feature of the battlefield, you have the question of what do you call the other melee infantry. Previously they were just 'infantry' because they were all similar polearm equipped soldiers. So once you have pike you have to come up with a name for the 'others'. The English called them billmen, because for the English the bill was the classic cut and thrust polearm. Other nations called them differently, usually related to their favoured polearm. So that is why the terminology didn't exist before, but comes into use once pike-armed units become a dominant feature of warfare, which happens later for the English than on the Continent.
Bills are an agricultural tool used for pruning tree branches, heavy blade lifted above target branch and pulled. They would be common in villages with orchards, so they would be a ready weapon the common man could arrive with. We had a group of pikes of different lengths that were used for raising barn timbers. Numerous weapons started as tools.
Bills are not only used in orchards for out of reach material, they were/are commonly used when coppicing and hedge-laying too. In this case, they are typically sized for and come with a handle suitable to use one-handed. But the Yorkshire bill has one more the length of a axe handle and is easiest to use two-handed.
@@bonnie115 You're absolutely correct! I wasn't thinking about scope of use, just their availability in those times. I actually own both a two-handed bill and a one handed bill, nasty piece of work! I didn't mention them under the assumption he was referring to pole-arms only, but I was lax in my comment.
Whenever I watch videos that discuss various topics like this, I can help but admire Mr. Easton's abundant sword collection while I listen to the subject at hand. As a collector myself I can't help but envy his copious walls of weaponry. :)
Bill-men already existed way before the 15th century. A bill is mainly just a spear shaft with a tool commonly used by peasants for pruning and such. If you show any military bill to a grandma who used to live in the countryside, she will likely recognize and name it. For example, already at the start of the Hundred Years War, in the muster roll of the rape of Hastings of 1339, you have "bilmen". (I tried to add a link to the muster roll, but it seems that UA-cam eliminates my post if I do that.) Before that, have you ever heard of a "guisarme"? Assuming that a "guisarme" and a "bill" are archetypally the same thing (as it is usually believed to be the case), the "bill" has always been around quite conspicuously: it used to be called "guisarme" in the High Middle Ages, then it was called either "guisarme" or "bill" (or variants thereof, like "gisarm" and "bil") during the XIV century, and it was called just "bill" (or variants thereof, like "byll") from about the XV century onwards (when the term "guisarme" fell out of use). Mind you that "guisarme" and "bill" could have been indicating different things at the same or different times, of course (much like you have very different type of "bills"), and it is not certain what a "guisarme" actually was.
This is very interesting, and I had not heard of this muster before which definitely raises a lot more questions. As for the meaning of guisarme, it would seem that it is a broad term. There is a 14th century poem of Gawain and the Green Knight, who mentions that Gawain uses a 'guisarme' which we know from the legend and from the accompanying miniature in this case refers to a broad axe, but is this what this term always means? Likely not.
In the hope you'll find it useful information: in italian the farm implement that became the bill is called "roncola", as such the weaponized version is often called "roncolone" (-one = big, same as for spadone)
I think the biggest problem with "billmen" in the WOTR and late 100YW is that we know from the equipment records that the armies had bills and various polearms, but it is not clear from the orders of battle who is actually using them. Is it a proportion of the men classified as "archers"? (If you can't demonstrate enough proficiency with your longbow, you can stand in line with a bill instead...) Lesser men-at-arms? (Can't afford full-harness? Then you probably want something with a bit more reach than a pollaxe...) Low end levies and militia? (Gather up ten men from this village most fit for service, and issue each a gambeson, helmet, and bill...) They just don't seem to fit into any of the official classifications at the time.
I believe it's the first. That is what the French, Breton, and Scot archers all did in the 15th century. Those who could not shoot, carried "polearms". I believe the Franc archer musters have about 1/5 or so of the men carrying vouges typically (dont quote me on that). If you look at 16th century English musters, and 15th and 16th century French levy (ban and arriere ban) musters, often times about only half the men come to muster with bows, and the rest carry bills, guisarmes, and pikes. I think that is what happened at Flodden, for example. Since they could not pick and choose, they were left with what they had, whereas the super high proportion archer armies of the HYW were expeditionary in nature, and led towards a more "ideal" army.
I agree, unless I missed it in the video, who are the men using the bills (and halberds, glaives etc)? Are they men at arms using the bills as a cheaper alternative to pollaxes or are they peasant levies who are rubbish at archery?
I am SO fascinated by the early illustrations of London Bridge. It always amazes me when I'm reminded of how much stuff was actually on it! There were like whole marketplace buildings on it, weren't there?
I suppose it was because a huge amount of people were constantly channeled through there and there was no other place to go once you were on it so it was an ideal place for a business 😅
There's a cool model of it in Magnus the Martyr (the church just below the bridge) though I don't think it's routinely open. Yes, there were houses (up to six storeys), upmarket shops and also a church and toilets. It's partly a business model and also, like everything in the middle ages, connected to religion. Building or maintaining a bridge (and no doubt other infrastructure) was a good deed worthy of time off purgatory so you might leave money in your will for that. I don't know how many medieval bridges had shops but churches was definitely a thing. There'd be a priest in the church who prayed for the soul of the benefactor and also collects the tolls . I think probably where you have a city with a big river running through, you'll likely have something like London Bridge. Ponte Vecchio in Florence is a surviving example. London bridge was also a charitable foundation. It took tolls and also rents from the shops. And also people would leave money in their wills. Apparently the City Bridge Foundation still has about 1.5 billion in assets. Bridges can also serves a defensive function. London Bridge restricts access up the Thames. There was a battle against the Vikings on an earlier bridge. London was abandoned after the Romans left. Alfred the Great reoccupied it for that reason.
Thank you for this. Have to say was worried at the start as I love fighting with a bill and didn't want to have to change to something else. Great video.
Remember that the name of a popular weapon model often becomes a collective name for all similar weapons. Seeing logic and meaning in old military records is often difficult for this reason.
The other thing I have to catch myself on is that the 'correct' name for a weapon is, more often than not, just the same word as is in English in a different language.
@@mudcrab3420 Yes, of course... There is also a funny thing that, for example, there is an English word that is popular in the world and therefore also used in other countries. But in these other countries there is also a local words that means the same thing. But few people know this because these two words are used in slightly different contexts and circumstances. But when you look in the dictionary... These two words actually mean exactly the same thing! In slightly earlier times this was true of Latin. There was a Latin word, used in a scientific context, and a local word that meant the same thing... All the people used both words, but they didn't know that it was actually one word, only in two languages.
Interestingly during the 1798 rebellion the Irish rebels modified their pikes to include a hook at the base of the blade similar to to some versions of the Bill for dismounting cavalry men. If it works it works.
Very informative video. Well done! I like the way you infer weapon usage from muster rolls and import records. It is kind of like that old saying of reading between the lines.
It's interesting that of the many forms of weapon in use back then, the bill is one of the few that might be found in use now. The bill was also a woodsman's and orchardist's tool used for lopping branches out of reach from the ground with an axe or pruning tool. In the US, the bill has been gradually replaced by long handled saws. My parents had a bill we used for clearing branches and reducing fire hazards. So, I am wondering how many of the "bills" listed on those musters were actually more employed toward peaceful ends during their use lives. A similar tool you can buy at any big box store is referred to as a brush axe or brush hook, which typically has an axe style handle rather than a longer pole. The edge sharpened varies, occasionally the outer curve, but often the interior. I am wondering if the "forest bill" isn't essentially a forester's tool.
I was about to say the same thing about the "Bills" recorded as coming into the port of London; how many of them were agricultural implements ? ? ( admittedly easily adapted or used as a weapon)
@@elio7610 The tool is visibly different from the weapon, but it's actually very easy to modify, especially in an English style (Italian bills are generally more purpose-built). Bits of the tool get stretched out and then spikes are forge-welded on, and boom, murder-stick.
Possibly the expression “billman” started as colloquial shorthand when the bill began to dominate. I suspect it was used in the military some time before it entered the written records.
As a child I was fascinated by this polearm. My Playmobil footmen had them after the production of halberds stopped. I like the German name Roßschinder. (Horse torturer)
So what you're saying is, had Tarantino lived back in the 1400s, he might have made *Kyll Byll* 🤔 History is truly full of surprises, thanks for the context! 👍👍
But have you confirmed the use of the medieval walkie talkie on the left at 1:25 was actually in use during the early 15th century, not just later in the 15th century? It may have been spelled walkye talkye back then
Next to the spear, the simplest improvised polearm is a sharp agricultural implement lashed to a stick. For example, a billhook, used everywhere everyday by everybody in the countryside for hedging and coppicing.
Hearing you say "bill" and "billmen" so much in one video, this dutch-speaker suddenly clicked that the word appears a cognate for "bijl"... in dutch, the humble axe! I suppose it is pretty poleaxe - adjacent! But, surprised I never thought of that before.
I had a discussion a few years ago about this, there was a guy claiming that billmen and longbowmen were one and the same, the weapon they used depended on the distance. I think it might have been under one of your videos! So I searched for evidence that billmen were their own segment of soldiers, separated from archers. And I did find some, but I then thought he was a troll, and so I didn't post it...
I remember a similar discussion back in my own re-enactment days. The argument always seem to me to overlook the fact that the kinds of armour and helmet that billmen would prefer - if they could get them - are incompatible with using a bow. I had the experience of discovering that my plate armour made it impossible to even load a short hackbut. I couldn't possibly have used a bow. We know that bowmen did enter melee combat - famously at Agincourt - but I suspect they preferred not to. There is also the fact that a bow was both a valuable and fragile piece of equipment. Archers generally carried them unstrung and covered. To simply abandon a bow on the battlefield to enter melee can't have been common practice. Also, a bill is a big heavy piece of kit. You don't carry one on the off-chance you might need it.
You don't give longbows to billmen, you give bills to the longbowmen. Bills were used by archers, without the characteristic armour. The bills have buttspikes so you can stick them on the ground by your side and they will stand up, when enemy enters in melee range, lay down your bows and switch to the bills. Archers did use a lot of two handed weapons, like two handed swords, so why no to use the bills? It will be hard to march carrying two two handed weapons, though!
@@AdlerMow Did they have butt spikes? More importantly, how deep would you have to stick a war bill in the ground, for it to stay upright? Remember that bills are top-heavy, it's very easy for them to fall over.
@@JustGrowingUp84Whenever we wanted to stick a bill into the ground we used the blade. Cupping the butt of the haft is necessary in both marching and fighting with a bill, so a butt spike would have been a bit of a nuisance. Though much of this was speculation on our part. I know that Ancient Greek spears had butt spikes but they were used over arm with one hand so a counter weight and a second point in case you lost the blade would make sense.
+scholagladiatoria *15th-Century English* (GBR) *infantry consisted of archer-swordsmen, billmen, and glaiviers; the pike was introduced to the English at the wind-down o' the Wars o' the Roses.* The war bills from the Venetian Republic (ITA) were lighter and more maneouverable than their pure English counterparts.
One thing I think would be interesting and worthwhile in doing would be a per unit costing of bills vs other ploe arms being imported. The Port of London records should have these, to name one possible source?
I am no historian, but a 'bill' (as a hook on a pole) was a common agricultural tool going back long before the 15th century. As I understand it (zero primary evidence!), many in the Anglo-saxon fyrd would bring their farming bills to a fight in lieu of a 'proper' weapon. I have seen a surviving example that looks as if the weapon started off as a billhook with a somewhat crude point fire-welded to it.
An interesting thing about the word "bill", ot "bil" is it appears in poetic Anglo-Saxon as an alternative word for "sword". Which is presumably where the polearm name derives from, being a hooked blade on a long stick.
Other than the Spear/Pike ...I always thought the 'Bill' was most Popular amongst the Infantry (of the time) as was It was made /styled from Agricultural Tools That any peasant could get....And they were relatively easy to manufacture (Local Blacksmiths)
Meanwhile in French, vougier and voulgier were already used in the later fourth of the 15th century. Unlike popular belief tends to assert, there's no reason to believe vouge/voulge are straight. Etymologically it's the same root as bésoil/vesoilh/védoil, which are local names for shafted billhooks used in tree pruning/trimming and pollarding. Vouge is the same word which underwent more linguistic evolution. It's most likely that voulge/vouge referred to polearms derived from billhooks, though in a very loose way as anything medieval. Straight single edged polearms, aka glaives and such, seems to have been simply called "couteau" or any variant of it, giving the name "coutilier" (or coustilier, coustilleux, etc...).
I disagree on this. While 'voulge' likely does have it roots in meaning bill in the 15th century the majority of polearms seen in france and burgundy, both in artistic depictions and in archeological finds (excluding common spears) are glaives, and not bills. Depictions of Franc Archers or the Scot's guard show them using glaives, et cetera. The word 'voulge' likely did refer to both bills and glaives, but the most common weapon is the glaive.
This dovetails rather nicely into the Era of Pike and Shot. Increasingly the bow was replaced by the gun (there being a lot of 'longbows' found on the Mary Rose) and the bill was replaced by the pike. If you view their function on the battlefield instead of the mechanics, you get a much smoother transition and less tactical change.
Cheers! Matt! I think an important point you certainly touch on is people in history weren't keeping records with the point of them being easily interpreted by others years, decades, centuries and millennia later. Keep up the good work! And don't grow mutton chops, ever .. ever .. again. Ever!
Good information. But also wondering then: what were they then called during the Wars of the Roses, since they weren't referred to as such? Surely they were referenced as something (i.e. pole-men, or just men-at-arms etc)? They wouldn't have left out mentioning an entire prominent section of the armies - but I didn't seem to catch if you noted what the default title was for these troops in the period. Or titles. Again, in the rolls were they called halberdiers, but just weren't armed as such - or spearmen maybe, just lumping them together? Or were they genuinely just not mentioned at all and only the archers were noted - though that doesn't seem like it would be the case. (full apologies if I missed this in the video. I did catch a few slight references in the video, but none really specifically stated the titles used I don't think. I do realize that wasn't the subject of the video i.e. what they were called rather than did they exist? But I'm just curious about this as well.) Great video as always and keep up the good work!
@@scholagladiatoriaah yes, now that I watched the entire video - youre absolutely right as usual. 😅 Please make a video about mounted archers! It fits your channel like a glove and the prevalence of mounted archers is just such a vast topic do explore!
a shortened bill hook can be used as a firearm stand for aiming just like the Russian bardiche if it is even shorter and narrower than it can function as a plug bayonet as well
You can't really use a billhook as a plug bayonet. Bayonets, especially plug bayonets don't work well as cutting or hewing weapons. They are thrusting weapons and the fact that plug bayonets are fixed via a friction fit would mean every time you tried to use the bill to rake or cut it would be pulled out of the muzzle of the gun depriving you of your weapon.
Mine is 'Italian export' featured in a German painting, so not English at all really, though you could find similar armours in England at the time (also exported from Italy).
@@scholagladiatoria That's really beautiful. All things Renaissance intrigue me, but especially in Italy. Would love to have been a fly on the wall to observe the commerce and trade in that period alone, much less the military technology that was in advancement. Meanwhile, some turbaned, bearded man is writing manuals on swordfightling. Just a fascinating time!
So had indentured contract as developed during the 100 years war been replaced by the Wars of the Roses? Does the Bridport Muster role describe people turning up as summonsed by a Magnate, as they are his retainers or is or it people who turned up to take a contract ???
Serious question, Matt? Like some Japanese arms, could these weapons have came from modified agricultural implements? I know they have hooks on them, but some long shafted tools I've seen were produced for jobs like getting fruits from high up branches or even scythes with curved blades for cultivating cereal crops. These weapons must have been effective in the hands of someone trained in their use.
So grateful for your research-thank you for sharing your insights! After hearing *ow bills became so widespread, now I'm wondering: *why* did bills become the default polearms during/following the War of the Roses? I've heard they were both more versatile and more effective than other weapons of the time, but I'd love clarity on exactly how that looked.
Unlike other pole arms your average bill hook could: friction lock weapons within the hook, either keeping the opponent inplace or force them to abandoned their weapon. Some variations had a "blade breaker" two spines on the back too do this task rather than a s secondary pierce point. The hook could be used to trip, cut behind armour, or along the curve of the limb. Forward facing pierce point allowed spear friendly formation and a pierce point on the back of the weapon head allowed for penetration of heavier armor do to greater inertia.
I hear a lot that Bills were widely used because they are essentially easily retooled agricultural tools. Having used a billhook for general all round use I could definitely see that being true. Would love to see a video examing actual evidence of that and off peasent levies using retooled agricultural more generally, or if its just a myth. Thanks for your great videos dude.
Agricultural bills were likely pressed into service and the martial bill likely developed from agricultural tools (a lot of weapons were developed from agricultural tools). But the martial bills being bought to equip armies as referred to in this video were purpose designed and built weapons not a modified tool.
It's very interesting when you look back in history and see something like this - basically an evolution of the spear - and realize this is advancing technology in its day. It might seem obvious to us that adding an extra hook here and a spike there would make the weapon more versatile, yet it was quite late (in medieval history) before it became mainstream.
Two of the biggest advantages of the spear were its simplicity and cost effectiveness. The more complex heads of a bill etc are going to be substantially more expensive and more complex for a levy to use. You also see firearms developed, they moved to more simple pikes as the predominant polearm (often with a smaller number of halberds integrated into the formation).
I remember that in a lot of these muster rolls- reading "can do good service with an axe"... or something similar. Quite generic but might mean a poleaxe although that was seen more as a gentleman's weapon on foot at this time.
Question - Generally speaking, what was the proportion of archers and billmen/polearm users to knights/men-at-arms in the Wars of the Roses? Would it be closer to 5-1 or 10-1 or 15-1?
What about a little earlier? Could I expect to find bills at Agincourt? Because I have looked, but in combination of other things to do and lack of resources you do I couldn’t find anything.
According to "THE SOLDIER IN LATER MEDIEVAL ENGLAND website the section WAS YOUR ANCESTOR ON THE AGINCOURT CAMPAIGN WITH HENRY V? gives a resume of numbers of men-at-arms and archers. In one noble's muster the men-at-arms are called ‘escuiers’ (we call it esquire or squire.) Elsewhere they are called lances. These would be anyone with a hand weapon that wasn't a bow. (Probably consisting of a polearm of varying length, sword and knife.) The only other category (apart knights and nobles) were archers (called *vallettes") I'd give a URL but they tend to result in the post getting zapped.
Were the weapons of war at these times owned by men in the villiages who were "drafted" by the "lord of the manor"? Or were they kept by the lord in his armory and then given to the "troops" before a battle? Weapons are expensive, and I wouldn't think the people could afford to buy them. On the other hand, I wouldn't think the lord would buy all these weapons and then give them out to the "troops" hoping they will maintain them in good condition until needed for some battle in the future.
Billman being refered to as a specific troop type might be more to do with specialisation or a rise in variety of weapons (thus needing specific names tk delineate) though i am saying this without reading any of the sources - you can call this comment "lightly researched"
Talk more about Reenactment! It's a closed society with no one giving good insights. How much force do you use in combat? How do you handle ranged weapons? How different is battlefield from HEMA fighting? How elitist can they get?
If we want to delve a bit deeper into the language, could "bill" simply mean "polearm" in the time period considered. A bit like "sword" has come to mean "bayonet" in the rifles regiment. Based on its historical meaning, but comes to mean a whole range of arms. Just a thought. Maybe its problematic to fix our understanding around a singular term?
I like that you said “some sort of formation”. I commend you for sticking to what we know about ancient and medieval warfare, which is practically nothing. Pretty much everything in regards to tactics and formations is purely speculative and the products of peoples imaginations. This is due to the fact that there are no sources that describe any formations, strategy, or tactics. There are no manuscripts, tactical doctrines, or manuals. There are a few pictures of knights in combat in medieval chronicles, but these were drawn after the event by people who were not there, so again, a product of the imagination.
Hi Matt! I have a question that popped in my mind yesterday... the "king of the battlefield" was usually the spear for its range, cheapness and overall effectiveness... why the hell are there no short sword-length spears as a sidearm instead of swords or axes?! Isn't that a logical approach? I mean sure, i imagine a sword is more effective as a sidearm but i literally never heard of any one-handed-short-spear as a sidearm and i find that to be completely implausible.... could you pls talk about that for a minute? thank you very much in advance :)
The Zula iklwa is a short spear used with a shield. I don't know whether they were worn like sidearms. Wearing a short spear seems a touch awkward, though certainly not impossible.
It’s because the chief advantage of a spear is reach. Once the enemy gets *inside* the reach of your spear it is not very effective, as they can push the shaft away with a free hand. A sword is sharp over the whole of its blade and harder to parry as a result.
I mean, depending on what specific Battle in the Wars of the Roses we're looking at, Infantry may well be armed with long hunting knives and pitchforks 🤷♂️ like any civil war, armament will vary according to availability, faction and the wealth or strength of a given faction. I think it's maybe closer to assume there was a generally non-uniform mishmash of whatever sharp metal bit could be fitted to a pole through most of the period
I don' t know english situation, because i am german from Württemberg. Here there had been different types of , fighting men' during 15th/ 16th/ 17th century. The most dangerous and best equipped seem to have been hired mercenaries, some relicts of medieval feudal levies existed into 1630s.Even then, about 1630, Duke of Württemberg mobilized his ,vassals' as small mounted force. For the reason, that 1514 , Treaty of Tübingen ' gave württembergian Parlament/ Landtag more rights than in all other german state, the Dukes had long into 18th century problems to establish a fightable, standing army'. So the hired mercenaries or later standing army had low numbers. The Parlament/ Landtag prefered for tradition and cheapness the Landesdefension ( Translation not really necessary). Every district/ Oberamt had to train and equip a number of militiamen. But in some battles of Thirty Years War (1618- 1648) , for example Wimpfen or Nördlingen, this militias suffered terrible losses, Low quality of Training and Equipment. But in case of emergency, but in reality rather rare, it was in HRE for noble or spiritual Lords, or the rulers of , imperial territories' possible, to mobilize the Landsturm ( you surely have heared of wwll Volkssturm). In this case every halfway fightable man had to fight. But in the rare cases, this Landsturm was mobilized in 17th/ 18th century, the levies had usually no training, equipment? Few outdated weapons like matchlock muskets and polearms, but mostly dangerous Tools, selfmade weapons, and the rather few private weapons. So usually this Landsturm was only usefull als armed workforce , guard- and policeforce.
@brittakriep2938 England and the American colonies were very much the same until the 19th century. But if we focus on the context of the Wars of the Roses, there were 3 or 4 major peasant uprisings, in which the peasantry were generally poorly armed and led, though they did manage to succeed on a handful or battlefields. There were also many small private wars fought between noble families who disliked each other and took advantage of the weak monarchy. These wars consisted of noblemen of various ranks and their household retainers, who were all well armed and trained, bolstered by peasant levies from the farms and villages the nobles owned. Some of these peasant levies had good quality arms and armor, such as halberds, pikes, or bill hooks, brigandines or cuirasses, and helmets such as kettle-hats. Many of these levies would, however, have had rather poor equipment such as a leather jack and a simple spear or axe. Mercenaries were absolutely present in all the largest battles of this period, as well as many smaller ones. These most often came from Flanders, Calais, Ireland and Scotland, and their equipment also varied substantially depending upon where they came from, but as a rule such men were a better equipped than the peasant levies and possessed substantial experience fighting in other parts of Europe, giving them a tactical advantage on the field.
@@tmmccormick86 :What you describe, is not uncommon to me. Why? In the time periode Mr. Easton describes, from 1460s to 1530s, current Germany was HRE, devided into over 300 states. On paper the Roman Emperor ( they called themself NOT German Emperor) was head and ruler of HRE , supported by the noble Lords, spiritual Lords and members of empirial Staff, from time to time a Reichstag/ imperial diet was hold, to clear problems of internal or foreign policy. But in reality the rulers of the many territories did what they wanted, using the since late 13th century starting weakness of Roman Emperor for their own success. A Note: Up to 1496 german knights had been NO part of Nobility. In 1496 the then ruling Emperor Maximilian l , was powerfull enough, to establish Reichskreise / Military districts in which every state had to send a number of soldiers ( depending on size of state) to Form a regulated Reichsarmee/ Army of the Empire ( in addition to the Kaiserliche Armee/ Army of the Emperor). And the Reichstage, formerly only from time to time, became a permanent Parlament in town Regensburg. Not included in this system had been the territories of Imperial Knights and other ,Strangities' of HRE. My homeregion belonged to Reichskreis / Military district Swabia , and consisted of exactly 100 states (!), look on a map: Between Rivers Rhine and Lech, Lake of Constance and a Line, from northern end of Black Forrest. About 20 to 30 Spiritual Lords, 20 to 30 Imperial Towns and 40 to 60 Noble Lords. You can Imagine, that the troops of those states over the decades for being small and low trained became nearly useless when in 1790s facing french Revolution Army. After this Overview, and after my other comment, a comeback to late 15th/ early 16th century. There had been inside of HRE many small wars between this, especially in my Region, smaller states, without foreign Powers. Then there had been wars with foreign Powers, in which only some german states had been involved, for example Burgundian Wars, rarely Wars of full HRE with foreign Powers. And often the Fehden/ feuds (?) of the Knights caused much Trouble, originaly an allowed behaviour of the Knights, when Justice problems existed and a Knight feeled betrayed, but for numerous reasons, the Knights oversretched their rights. This feuds often became large, because the Knights mobilized not only their servants and farmers, but also mobilized their Knights Class friends with their men, or the reasons for the feud was very constructed and so the feud became more a robbery act than an allowed feud, you surely have heared about german Raubritter/ robbery Barons ( Baronett would be more precise). In 1496 this feuds had been forbidden, but they really ended in early 1520s after the end of a Knights Rebellion led by a then very famous Knight. And farmers rebellions , sometimes also citizens rebellions happened, but mostly on small Level. But in 1524 to 1526 a series of larger farmers rebellions happened, in 1525 the largest Rebellion happened, both in Swabia and Thuringia , and for a short time Nobility was in heavy trouble, a success seemed possible. Now, the fighting men and their equipment was/ had been so different, like you told it in your description of English Situation.
I actually like to think about the fact that I descend from nobility so I would be a one with retinue. However I descend from pretty low nobility so mostly I wonder how shitty my retinue would be :)
I would certainly say they existed prior too. After all, bills are rather ancient and as agricultural tools turned weapons of war were found in Merovingian graves of 7th century. Many wine making, farming or forest rich fiefdoms and cities adopted bills as symbols and charges of their coats of arms across central Europe and we have Italian manuals speaking of forest bill weapons in, I think 13th and 14th century. It would make sense for, at the very least levies, to buy such cheaper to make and maintain weapons, if they wanted something heavier than a spear, to supplement the voulges, fauchards, partisans, glaives and the likes...
Matt - off top - I have a weird question for you: Have you ever tried fencing with drunk goggles? And do you think it would be a fair fight: master in drunk goggles vs noob? :)
I have... many years ago... I probably should not talk about it publicly though. My basic view is that being drunk hugely messes with your reflexes and distance judgement, but on average makes you way better at taking pain.
Bill, Byll, Halberd, Halbert, Glaive, Guisarme, Yari, Kama Yari etc, ad nauseum. Does it matter? All are polearms, (and despite being called a spear, the yari is used in the same way as a polearm, at least the shorter ones), so we're talking about... a POLEARM. And they can all be used in similar ways. I.E., not just as a thrusting spear. I mean, compare the Naginata vs the Glave. Doesn't really matter what people back then called them, it's how they were used.
What does "Italy" mean in a medieval context? The territory that the modern state of Italy encompasses or something else? I find it somewhat confusing when people use the names of modern states when referring to a historical period in which they did not exist.
Italy was actually referred to as Italy in the medieval period and was defined by the area where Italian was spoken. See Fiore dei Liberi's treatise of 1410 for example, where he refers to Italians and Germans - defined by what language they spoke.
Matt could you do a video on the Anglo Norman nobility of England in the Fourteenth and early Fifteenth century before anglicization fully took place. Especially in comparison to French nobility in the Hundred Years War.
Usually it's simply 'footmen' in the surviving and known accounts of the time, although the term footmen also can include ranged archers on foot as well, as a distinction from the mounted bowmen which also were common in England at the time.
So you basically found the bills for the bills and the bills were high so you know there were many bills.
Bill business. Business of giving the business. Bill business. And business is open. Bill business is banging. Bill business of the business bill. Byll*
Specifically, they were being used up so fast, they needed importing.
Yo dawg! I heard you like bills, so we put bills on your bills!
@@iandstanley is anybody jumping on bill's pole?
"Sometimes I feel like a pelican - whichever way I turn I still have an enormous bill in front of me." Edmund Blackadder.
One thing worth mentioning with written sources is that written language and spoken language are two distinct things that can often have their own quirks. It could be the case that the term billman was being used in spoken vernacular before it was written down, but obviously theres no evidence for that. (I mention this because of other claims like Shakespeare inventing loads of words when more likely he was the first to write down words already in use in the spoken vernacular)
Yes, that's certainly a good point
In 1623, 2000 bills arrived in Virginia from London to re-equip the Virginia Company after the March 1622 Powhatan attack. They ended up being cut up and turned into tobacco agricultural tools.
Yes the Virginia Company probably wanted guns to use against the natives. They didn’t want to get close enough to engage them with pole arms.
Matt, it is absolutely uncanny, almost frightening, your ability to provide these in-depth discussions to pressing questions I did not know I had. Keep up the great work and I thank you for it. Cheers!
My pleasure!
Flodden 1513 supports the notion that bills were prevalent in English armies in the early 16th century. Multiple accounts from that same year mention bills & their importance in the English victory. Thomas Ruthal did indicate both bills & halberds were present.
Yep, totally. I suspect that this was the case increasingly from about 1480.... but it's just not clear that they were before that.
Always worth watching the video first.
@@skepticalbadger That's literally not an option now that UA-cam has banned ad blockers. /s (For the record, I did watch the video before commenting.)
I watched a documentary on the battle of Flodden where this was referred to as 'the brown bill' I often wonder whether this has any influence on the name for the 'brown bess' musket.
Reply
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 using brave browser just plays without ads or bans.
Who else hoped at 4 minutes he was going to say: "There were 2 types of infrantry, bowmen who's job it was to shoot arrows, and the other type, who's job it was to catch them with their body"?
Sounds like something Lloyd would say.
"Catch them with their mouth like that scene in Metalocalypse."
I didn't, because it's bullshit.
Great video.
Matt how about a video on why the bill was so dominant?
I think a video in general on polearm use(how specific ones were used when and where) and evolution would be outstanding.
Yes I ask for the moon! 😂
I think Lindybeige did a video covering it ias part of polearms a in general. Basically a leverage is really useful, so everyone built long sticks that had a hook, spike, and blade.
@@silentdrew7636
Was it years ago?
@@silentdrew7636He probably means why Bills are dominant over spears or pikes, which were often considered the most dominant (and costless) arms on field
@@wolfensniper4012 Culture indeed probably plays a role in it, for example the Goedendag is very prominent in Flemish units in the late medieval and early Renaissance, but was not found much elsewhere.
In the case of the bill, Italian and English units really liked them. Cavalry with two-handed flails were more common in Slavic Eastern Europe. For another example, despite its cost-effectiveness, slings (one-handed) were not very common among medieval European skirmishers.
And polearms, like all weapons, are part of a larger equation of armor, armament, terrain, tactics, and strategy. If chainmail (edit: plate, bills are quite good against chainmail) is more common in a given culture, they probably would not be as inclined towards the bill over other polearms, and the prevalence and type of cavalry and heavy infantry given the terrain, culture, and level of wealth/technology will also make a significant impact.
But the other side of it a Billhook or Goedendag is really, really close in cost to a short or long spear, depending on the length, and are vastly more flexible ... in particular, bills and Geodendags have far stronger responses to mounted and/or armored combatants than a spear, or even a pike.
Similarly, javelins were almost completely supplanted by war darts. I think it wouldn't be fair to the spear to exclude bills completely from that category. I would say that, essentially speaking, a bill is a hybrid spear and sword-spear (like a naginata), while a Goedendag is simply a heavy short-spear that can club.
I was involved in War of The Roses re-enactment during the 1990's.
Undoubtedly more historical research has been carried out since (one of the many reasons I watch your channel). We had combined force of pike, halberd, partisan etc interspersed to fight at distance obviously followed by sidearm/tertiary weapon.
Lots of fun back in the day.. especially Tewkesbury field.
Is that Lloyd of Lindybeige just behind you at 0:37?
Yes
As a german I always thought the english bill to be a kind of what we call "Hellebarde" (halbert), but it really is a perfect example of what in german is called a "Rossschinder" (translates to: "Horse flayer")
Bill and later Billhook is because it has a curved short blade (and then later also a hook) from ancient words meaning Axe
Helberd is from a similar route meaning broadaxe with handle ...
All are a blade on a long pole ...
The German Wikipedia article for a Rossschinder is illustrated with a drawing ....labelled 'Bill'
You can go VERY deep analyzing the English terms for polearms. I kind of like the German preference for saying what a thing is used for.
A bill hook was, as far as I can tell, a wartime adaption of the agricultural pruning hook, which then had it's backside sharpened to add a bit of glaive functionality/
@@yobgodababua1862 Actually, if you look at a Yorkshire bill, a hedging tool, it has the hooked blade on one side and a sharpened flat blade on the other to use like an axe. Thus the only thing needed would be to add a spike to the end. The hooked blade is great to sned branches and cut/partially cut through the thinner material (also when coppicing) while the straight edge on the other side is great if you need to fell a tree or cut through thicker material.
@@bonnie115 Specifically, the hook blade has a fairly powerful draw cut. Not hard to believe most examples I’ve seen could cut a three inch tree in one stroke.
@@bonnie115Yeah, there's a Kentish bill which is very similar.
Modern billhooks are much smaller, but still pretty fearsome. It's easy to see how they were adapted into weapons.
Interesting. I was always under the impression that the war bill evolved from expediency, i.e. from attaching an agricultural bill to the end of a pole. They subsequently found that it was an extremely effective weapon. Having used a Yorkshire bill - a hedging tool - I can easily see how it would recommend itself to lopping heads as well as branches! The Dutch word for axe, by the way, is 'bijl', which was also spelled 'byl' in the old days.
Bills are commonly used nowdays as tools still
I’ve got to admit, I had to do a second take on the hedging tool. I read it as hedgehog tool…
Also, dear Matt, you could make a video about the dominance of mounted archers in hundred years war on both french and English sides.
Mounted archers! There's a complex topic.. I'll have to try and get Mike Loades on.
They were only dominant when they got off their four legged transport. Also only dominant when being attacked, as an offensive weapon it was not ideal. When forced on the offensive ie. Forminguy and Castellon the longbow had little influence. Outside Orlean 1428 the English army left the field rather than attack in spite of Falstaffs army being a day away.
............. im just going to continue my requests ive been asking for the last 157 days
@@scholagladiatoriaIf you do get him on and he asserts that archers primarily shot at close range, could you please challenge him on how 16th century sources (except for Monluc during one skirmish) all assume that archers will be engaging from maximum range, that some medieval art *does* show archers shooting elevated during a field battle and that other artwork shows them shooting flat across the 800m+ distance of the Blanchetaque and perhaps there really are stylistic factors at play in medieval art?
We have to remember a big reason why the Mongols invaded europe is because they thought they had found their equals.
After all, the Hungarians and Byzantines and Rus' were famous across the rest of europe for horse archery.
This is one of the best videos I've ever seen you.
The breakdown of how you utilized sources was amazingly useful to hear.
Has opened up a whole new way to research the Wars of the Roses.
Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The Bridport Muster Roll of 1457 mention bills only 3 times. Glaives are mentioned 13 times, spears 5 times, poleaxe 8 times and lead mace 3 times.
Do you have an idea why glaives were so popular weapons during that period? Afterall, they don't seem to be suited for use against armoured opponents, and given that by the middle of the 15th century, the majority of foot soldiers wore extensive armour, it makes me question the utility of such a weapon. Maybe their purpose was to combat horses?
@@henriknemeth3370 That's a good question. I am afraid I don't know. The men at the Bridport Muster are not well armoured though. It's usually helmet, or helmet and jack for the most part. Some have mail shirts. A few have full harness. A surprisingly large number have nothing.
The problem with using the Bridport Muster Roll as an example of the prevalence of bills during the Wars of the Roses is that only 2 of the 196 men listed have bills, so the smallest proportion (7%) of all types of pollarm listed in the Roll, and the lowest proportion of any weapon recorded there. There are in fact six times more soldiers with glaives (a specific and distinct type of pollarm) than with bills in the Bridport list.
"London is the capital of Great Britain. It is situated on the banks of the river Thames...". Thank you for decades old flashback from my English lessons in my school, Matt.
I googled and found out fun fact: modern day Ukrainian school students learn the same text I learned by heart 20+ years ago for some reason.
Then you talk to one of us, and realise we needed those lessons too =D
Well, it takes care of two lessons at once. English and Geography.
Well, it's not like anybody has moved London since.
"For some reason" because the language is the same? And London is still the capital and still on the Thames? What kind of a ridiculous attitude you have
Dear Matt could you do a video on how exactly medieval armies organization and chain of command worked? I as a layman cant find many good sources on this.
Edit: Specifically stuff like who would actually command a company of archers or spearmen in the hundred years war? As all the knights and lords would presumably go off to fight on horseback
Excellent idea!
Andrew Ayton tackles this in his chapter on the English army in "The Battle of Crécy, 1346". The infantry raised by Commissions of Array were divided into vintaines (20 men) and centuries (100 men), each led by a vintenar and a centenar. Vintenars were usually wealthier members of the community, while centenars were either just below the level of wealth that would require them to be a man-at-arms or, sometimes, men-at-arms. They most likely fought together as a unit and were attached to a specific "battle". Most likely centenars received orders from whoever was in charge of the battle and passed those orders through.
The mounted archers serving in a retinue are much harder to work out, but Ayton proposes that they fought in concert with the men-at-arms, screening them before the battle and then retreating to fight in the back lines or, in battles without foot archers, to the flanks.
Ooh good one, not only how it was done in England, but perhaps how things differed in different lands/cultures. I think when we imagine it we have this very modern structure in mind, but frankly from what little I have looked into, it was a lot more haphazard than we might expect. Some more concrete details would be lovely, for how command both on the field and at peace might have worked as a working chain of command/process.
For a generalized answer, ua-cam.com/video/ZQHfit8b6VA/v-deo.htmlsi=-XHtq-yqImW0yOGZ
Wasn’t the bill originally an agricultural tool for hedging that was cheaply adapted by fixing it to a pole for infantry?
One of the things that popular history neglects is any discussion of the tactics, strategy and leaders employing pole armed forces with greater or lesser effect. Did Bills become the default for some event or commander's preference?
One explanation that I don't think anyone has posted yet is that the the description of billmen only becomes necessary when English armies have melee infantry units using something else. So 'billmen' as a description of units appear about the time that pike becomes the predominant melee infantry weapon in Continental Europe and they start to turn up in English armies (initially as mercenary units). Suddenly you need to distinguish between pike-armed units and the other melee infantry units which are only carrying shorter cut-and-thrust polearms. Prior to this, there are simply archers and the ones not carrying longbows. Indeed it would have been confusing to have called them billmen, because some of the archers might be carrying bills and the 'billmen' are carrying all sorts of different polearms.
I don't think that really holds up for two reasons:
1) As far as I am aware, few medieval or renaissance armies differentiated units with polearms like that. They basically viewed a polearm as a polearm and just threw them together (I am sure there are exceptions especially around Royal guards etc, but for the bulk of the rank and file soldiers).
2) If that was a thing, that would presumably have been an issue from the start when bills were a smaller part of the polearms before they became dominant.
@@88porpoise Pike are different from other polearms, they require different drill and tactics to work. You can't just lump soldiers with pike into a unit and expect it to work, in the way that other polearms might. So pike units are called exactly that, even though these units also contain soldiers armed with other polearms.
Once pike units are a feature of the battlefield, you have the question of what do you call the other melee infantry. Previously they were just 'infantry' because they were all similar polearm equipped soldiers. So once you have pike you have to come up with a name for the 'others'. The English called them billmen, because for the English the bill was the classic cut and thrust polearm. Other nations called them differently, usually related to their favoured polearm.
So that is why the terminology didn't exist before, but comes into use once pike-armed units become a dominant feature of warfare, which happens later for the English than on the Continent.
Just a quick thing before I'm at all done watching - those are some great pictures! 👍
Thanks!
Bills are an agricultural tool used for pruning tree branches, heavy blade lifted above target branch and pulled. They would be common in villages with orchards, so they would be a ready weapon the common man could arrive with. We had a group of pikes of different lengths that were used for raising barn timbers. Numerous weapons started as tools.
Bills are not only used in orchards for out of reach material, they were/are commonly used when coppicing and hedge-laying too. In this case, they are typically sized for and come with a handle suitable to use one-handed. But the Yorkshire bill has one more the length of a axe handle and is easiest to use two-handed.
@@bonnie115 You're absolutely correct! I wasn't thinking about scope of use, just their availability in those times. I actually own both a two-handed bill and a one handed bill, nasty piece of work! I didn't mention them under the assumption he was referring to pole-arms only, but I was lax in my comment.
Whenever I watch videos that discuss various topics like this, I can help but admire Mr. Easton's abundant sword collection while I listen to the subject at hand. As a collector myself I can't help but envy his copious walls of weaponry. :)
Bill-men already existed way before the 15th century. A bill is mainly just a spear shaft with a tool commonly used by peasants for pruning and such. If you show any military bill to a grandma who used to live in the countryside, she will likely recognize and name it.
For example, already at the start of the Hundred Years War, in the muster roll of the rape of Hastings of 1339, you have "bilmen".
(I tried to add a link to the muster roll, but it seems that UA-cam eliminates my post if I do that.)
Before that, have you ever heard of a "guisarme"?
Assuming that a "guisarme" and a "bill" are archetypally the same thing (as it is usually believed to be the case), the "bill" has always been around quite conspicuously: it used to be called "guisarme" in the High Middle Ages, then it was called either "guisarme" or "bill" (or variants thereof, like "gisarm" and "bil") during the XIV century, and it was called just "bill" (or variants thereof, like "byll") from about the XV century onwards (when the term "guisarme" fell out of use).
Mind you that "guisarme" and "bill" could have been indicating different things at the same or different times, of course (much like you have very different type of "bills"), and it is not certain what a "guisarme" actually was.
This is very interesting, and I had not heard of this muster before which definitely raises a lot more questions. As for the meaning of guisarme, it would seem that it is a broad term. There is a 14th century poem of Gawain and the Green Knight, who mentions that Gawain uses a 'guisarme' which we know from the legend and from the accompanying miniature in this case refers to a broad axe, but is this what this term always means? Likely not.
Billhooks are still used today
In the hope you'll find it useful information:
in italian the farm implement that became the bill is called "roncola", as such the weaponized version is often called "roncolone" (-one = big, same as for spadone)
I think the biggest problem with "billmen" in the WOTR and late 100YW is that we know from the equipment records that the armies had bills and various polearms, but it is not clear from the orders of battle who is actually using them. Is it a proportion of the men classified as "archers"? (If you can't demonstrate enough proficiency with your longbow, you can stand in line with a bill instead...) Lesser men-at-arms? (Can't afford full-harness? Then you probably want something with a bit more reach than a pollaxe...) Low end levies and militia? (Gather up ten men from this village most fit for service, and issue each a gambeson, helmet, and bill...) They just don't seem to fit into any of the official classifications at the time.
I believe it's the first. That is what the French, Breton, and Scot archers all did in the 15th century. Those who could not shoot, carried "polearms". I believe the Franc archer musters have about 1/5 or so of the men carrying vouges typically (dont quote me on that).
If you look at 16th century English musters, and 15th and 16th century French levy (ban and arriere ban) musters, often times about only half the men come to muster with bows, and the rest carry bills, guisarmes, and pikes. I think that is what happened at Flodden, for example. Since they could not pick and choose, they were left with what they had, whereas the super high proportion archer armies of the HYW were expeditionary in nature, and led towards a more "ideal" army.
I agree, unless I missed it in the video, who are the men using the bills (and halberds, glaives etc)? Are they men at arms using the bills as a cheaper alternative to pollaxes or are they peasant levies who are rubbish at archery?
I am SO fascinated by the early illustrations of London Bridge. It always amazes me when I'm reminded of how much stuff was actually on it! There were like whole marketplace buildings on it, weren't there?
I suppose it was because a huge amount of people were constantly channeled through there and there was no other place to go once you were on it so it was an ideal place for a business 😅
There's a cool model of it in Magnus the Martyr (the church just below the bridge) though I don't think it's routinely open.
Yes, there were houses (up to six storeys), upmarket shops and also a church and toilets.
It's partly a business model and also, like everything in the middle ages, connected to religion.
Building or maintaining a bridge (and no doubt other infrastructure) was a good deed worthy of time off purgatory so you might leave money in your will for that. I don't know how many medieval bridges had shops but churches was definitely a thing. There'd be a priest in the church who prayed for the soul of the benefactor and also collects the tolls . I think probably where you have a city with a big river running through, you'll likely have something like London Bridge. Ponte Vecchio in Florence is a surviving example.
London bridge was also a charitable foundation. It took tolls and also rents from the shops. And also people would leave money in their wills. Apparently the City Bridge Foundation still has about 1.5 billion in assets.
Bridges can also serves a defensive function. London Bridge restricts access up the Thames. There was a battle against the Vikings on an earlier bridge. London was abandoned after the Romans left. Alfred the Great reoccupied it for that reason.
Thank you for this. Have to say was worried at the start as I love fighting with a bill and didn't want to have to change to something else. Great video.
Remember that the name of a popular weapon model often becomes a collective name for all similar weapons. Seeing logic and meaning in old military records is often difficult for this reason.
The other thing I have to catch myself on is that the 'correct' name for a weapon is, more often than not, just the same word as is in English in a different language.
@@mudcrab3420 Yes, of course... There is also a funny thing that, for example, there is an English word that is popular in the world and therefore also used in other countries. But in these other countries there is also a local words that means the same thing. But few people know this because these two words are used in slightly different contexts and circumstances. But when you look in the dictionary... These two words actually mean exactly the same thing! In slightly earlier times this was true of Latin. There was a Latin word, used in a scientific context, and a local word that meant the same thing... All the people used both words, but they didn't know that it was actually one word, only in two languages.
Interestingly during the 1798 rebellion the Irish rebels modified their pikes to include a hook at the base of the blade similar to to some versions of the Bill for dismounting cavalry men. If it works it works.
Very informative video. Well done! I like the way you infer weapon usage from muster rolls and import records. It is kind of like that old saying of reading between the lines.
It's interesting that of the many forms of weapon in use back then, the bill is one of the few that might be found in use now. The bill was also a woodsman's and orchardist's tool used for lopping branches out of reach from the ground with an axe or pruning tool. In the US, the bill has been gradually replaced by long handled saws. My parents had a bill we used for clearing branches and reducing fire hazards. So, I am wondering how many of the "bills" listed on those musters were actually more employed toward peaceful ends during their use lives. A similar tool you can buy at any big box store is referred to as a brush axe or brush hook, which typically has an axe style handle rather than a longer pole. The edge sharpened varies, occasionally the outer curve, but often the interior. I am wondering if the "forest bill" isn't essentially a forester's tool.
I was about to say the same thing about the "Bills" recorded as coming into the port of London; how many of them were agricultural implements ? ? ( admittedly easily adapted or used as a weapon)
Is the agricultural tool really anything like the weapon, though?
@@elio7610 The tool is visibly different from the weapon, but it's actually very easy to modify, especially in an English style (Italian bills are generally more purpose-built). Bits of the tool get stretched out and then spikes are forge-welded on, and boom, murder-stick.
@@elio7610in my country we use bills all the time. The modern ones are pretty similiar to the polearms
@@elio7610not really an agricultural tool though
Great info. Thanks Matt!
I see what you did there:
- Bridport is a town.
- Endorse it.
- Very nice place, I recommend going there.
Possibly the expression “billman” started as colloquial shorthand when the bill began to dominate. I suspect it was used in the military some time before it entered the written records.
As a child I was fascinated by this polearm. My Playmobil footmen had them after the production of halberds stopped.
I like the German name Roßschinder. (Horse torturer)
So what you're saying is, had Tarantino lived back in the 1400s, he might have made *Kyll Byll* 🤔
History is truly full of surprises, thanks for the context! 👍👍
Excellent video.
Would love to see a video dedicated to Scottish polearms like the so-called Lochaber axe and the Jedburgh stave.
But have you confirmed the use of the medieval walkie talkie on the left at 1:25 was actually in use during the early 15th century, not just later in the 15th century? It may have been spelled walkye talkye back then
full plate like that looks fun to wear. yours is very nice looking, especially that darkened finish
0:36 a wild Lloyd 😂
Love your work, Matt!
Next to the spear, the simplest improvised polearm is a sharp agricultural implement lashed to a stick. For example, a billhook, used everywhere everyday by everybody in the countryside for hedging and coppicing.
Hearing you say "bill" and "billmen" so much in one video, this dutch-speaker suddenly clicked that the word appears a cognate for "bijl"... in dutch, the humble axe!
I suppose it is pretty poleaxe - adjacent! But, surprised I never thought of that before.
I had a discussion a few years ago about this, there was a guy claiming that billmen and longbowmen were one and the same, the weapon they used depended on the distance.
I think it might have been under one of your videos!
So I searched for evidence that billmen were their own segment of soldiers, separated from archers.
And I did find some, but I then thought he was a troll, and so I didn't post it...
I remember a similar discussion back in my own re-enactment days. The argument always seem to me to overlook the fact that the kinds of armour and helmet that billmen would prefer - if they could get them - are incompatible with using a bow. I had the experience of discovering that my plate armour made it impossible to even load a short hackbut. I couldn't possibly have used a bow.
We know that bowmen did enter melee combat - famously at Agincourt - but I suspect they preferred not to. There is also the fact that a bow was both a valuable and fragile piece of equipment. Archers generally carried them unstrung and covered. To simply abandon a bow on the battlefield to enter melee can't have been common practice. Also, a bill is a big heavy piece of kit. You don't carry one on the off-chance you might need it.
@@realhorrorshow8547
Exactly.
And where would you leave them, down on the ground?
So the potential dampness and mud can damage them?
You don't give longbows to billmen, you give bills to the longbowmen. Bills were used by archers, without the characteristic armour. The bills have buttspikes so you can stick them on the ground by your side and they will stand up, when enemy enters in melee range, lay down your bows and switch to the bills. Archers did use a lot of two handed weapons, like two handed swords, so why no to use the bills? It will be hard to march carrying two two handed weapons, though!
@@AdlerMow
Did they have butt spikes?
More importantly, how deep would you have to stick a war bill in the ground, for it to stay upright?
Remember that bills are top-heavy, it's very easy for them to fall over.
@@JustGrowingUp84Whenever we wanted to stick a bill into the ground we used the blade. Cupping the butt of the haft is necessary in both marching and fighting with a bill, so a butt spike would have been a bit of a nuisance. Though much of this was speculation on our part.
I know that Ancient Greek spears had butt spikes but they were used over arm with one hand so a counter weight and a second point in case you lost the blade would make sense.
+scholagladiatoria *15th-Century English* (GBR) *infantry consisted of archer-swordsmen, billmen, and glaiviers; the pike was introduced to the English at the wind-down o' the Wars o' the Roses.* The war bills from the Venetian Republic (ITA) were lighter and more maneouverable than their pure English counterparts.
Yes, he knows.
One thing I think would be interesting and worthwhile in doing would be a per unit costing of bills vs other ploe arms being imported. The Port of London records should have these, to name one possible source?
I miss this as a game on steam. I used to love donking people with the concussing bolts as a crossbowman
Bills are an astoundingly good polearm as they have a positive advantage against all infantry types in addition to cavalry.
I am no historian, but a 'bill' (as a hook on a pole) was a common agricultural tool going back long before the 15th century. As I understand it (zero primary evidence!), many in the Anglo-saxon fyrd would bring their farming bills to a fight in lieu of a 'proper' weapon. I have seen a surviving example that looks as if the weapon started off as a billhook with a somewhat crude point fire-welded to it.
An interesting thing about the word "bill", ot "bil" is it appears in poetic Anglo-Saxon as an alternative word for "sword". Which is presumably where the polearm name derives from, being a hooked blade on a long stick.
Would the term billmen have come about as there was a need to distinguish them from pikemen as that weapon gained prominence on the battlefield?
I love these research-heavy videos!
Other than the Spear/Pike ...I always thought the 'Bill' was most Popular amongst the Infantry (of the time) as was It was made /styled from Agricultural Tools That any peasant could get....And they were relatively easy to manufacture (Local Blacksmiths)
Is that our man Lindybeige in the background at 0:35 ? :D
Meanwhile in French, vougier and voulgier were already used in the later fourth of the 15th century. Unlike popular belief tends to assert, there's no reason to believe vouge/voulge are straight. Etymologically it's the same root as bésoil/vesoilh/védoil, which are local names for shafted billhooks used in tree pruning/trimming and pollarding. Vouge is the same word which underwent more linguistic evolution. It's most likely that voulge/vouge referred to polearms derived from billhooks, though in a very loose way as anything medieval. Straight single edged polearms, aka glaives and such, seems to have been simply called "couteau" or any variant of it, giving the name "coutilier" (or coustilier, coustilleux, etc...).
I disagree on this. While 'voulge' likely does have it roots in meaning bill in the 15th century the majority of polearms seen in france and burgundy, both in artistic depictions and in archeological finds (excluding common spears) are glaives, and not bills. Depictions of Franc Archers or the Scot's guard show them using glaives, et cetera.
The word 'voulge' likely did refer to both bills and glaives, but the most common weapon is the glaive.
Pp
This dovetails rather nicely into the Era of Pike and Shot. Increasingly the bow was replaced by the gun (there being a lot of 'longbows' found on the Mary Rose) and the bill was replaced by the pike. If you view their function on the battlefield instead of the mechanics, you get a much smoother transition and less tactical change.
Cheers! Matt! I think an important point you certainly touch on is people in history weren't keeping records with the point of them being easily interpreted by others years, decades, centuries and millennia later. Keep up the good work! And don't grow mutton chops, ever .. ever .. again. Ever!
Good information. But also wondering then: what were they then called during the Wars of the Roses, since they weren't referred to as such? Surely they were referenced as something (i.e. pole-men, or just men-at-arms etc)? They wouldn't have left out mentioning an entire prominent section of the armies - but I didn't seem to catch if you noted what the default title was for these troops in the period. Or titles. Again, in the rolls were they called halberdiers, but just weren't armed as such - or spearmen maybe, just lumping them together? Or were they genuinely just not mentioned at all and only the archers were noted - though that doesn't seem like it would be the case. (full apologies if I missed this in the video. I did catch a few slight references in the video, but none really specifically stated the titles used I don't think. I do realize that wasn't the subject of the video i.e. what they were called rather than did they exist? But I'm just curious about this as well.)
Great video as always and keep up the good work!
I'm going with "pointy boys".
@@dembro27 🙂
Armatii/homines armati/homines armatos/homines armetz. They are not men-at-arms (hommes d'armes) mounted on a horse with barding and trained for war.
@@eirikronaldfossheim ya, I didn't think that would apply, thank you for the other titles though.
I'd guess the overall term for melee infantry would be footmen
is that lindybeige in the back ground 0:36 ?
Yes
I've always wondered if there were dedicated mace and warhammer troops or was it just personal preference or pot luck what you were armed with?
Props for highlighting my favourite polearm!
I can vaguely remember billmen being on muster rolls in scot - England wars...
In the 1500s though? What about the 1400s?
@@scholagladiatoriaah yes, now that I watched the entire video - youre absolutely right as usual. 😅 Please make a video about mounted archers! It fits your channel like a glove and the prevalence of mounted archers is just such a vast topic do explore!
What about the bill as a weapon in the hundred years war? Were there any?
a shortened bill hook can be used as a firearm stand for aiming just like the Russian bardiche if it is even shorter and narrower than it can function as a plug bayonet as well
You can't really use a billhook as a plug bayonet. Bayonets, especially plug bayonets don't work well as cutting or hewing weapons. They are thrusting weapons and the fact that plug bayonets are fixed via a friction fit would mean every time you tried to use the bill to rake or cut it would be pulled out of the muzzle of the gun depriving you of your weapon.
Is Lindybeige behind you in the the photo at 0:36 sec?
Yes
@@scholagladiatoria Very cool! Great blues armor. Is that a more English set of Harness and helmet or did you mix and match?
Mine is 'Italian export' featured in a German painting, so not English at all really, though you could find similar armours in England at the time (also exported from Italy).
@@scholagladiatoria That's really beautiful. All things Renaissance intrigue me, but especially in Italy. Would love to have been a fly on the wall to observe the commerce and trade in that period alone, much less the military technology that was in advancement. Meanwhile, some turbaned, bearded man is writing manuals on swordfightling. Just a fascinating time!
So had indentured contract as developed during the 100 years war been replaced by the Wars of the Roses? Does the Bridport Muster role describe people turning up as summonsed by a Magnate, as they are his retainers or is or it people who turned up to take a contract ???
Anyone know the model in the thumbnail ??
It's me, but I'm not a professional model.
Looks like V & V Miniatures - 54mm English Billman #1
Serious question, Matt? Like some Japanese arms, could these weapons have came from modified agricultural implements? I know they have hooks on them, but some long shafted tools I've seen were produced for jobs like getting fruits from high up branches or even scythes with curved blades for cultivating cereal crops. These weapons must have been effective in the hands of someone trained in their use.
Yes it's well understood that the bill originated as an agricultural tool.
Do one about 13th century 2H polearm users and spear/shield users
You mentioned formation. It'd be interesting to see a video about infantry formations and how they changed over time...
So grateful for your research-thank you for sharing your insights! After hearing *ow bills became so widespread, now I'm wondering: *why* did bills become the default polearms during/following the War of the Roses? I've heard they were both more versatile and more effective than other weapons of the time, but I'd love clarity on exactly how that looked.
Unlike other pole arms your average bill hook could:
friction lock weapons within the hook, either keeping the opponent inplace or force them to abandoned their weapon. Some variations had a "blade breaker" two spines on the back too do this task rather than a s secondary pierce point.
The hook could be used to trip, cut behind armour, or along the curve of the limb.
Forward facing pierce point allowed spear friendly formation and a pierce point on the back of the weapon head allowed for penetration of heavier armor do to greater inertia.
I hear a lot that Bills were widely used because they are essentially easily retooled agricultural tools.
Having used a billhook for general all round use I could definitely see that being true.
Would love to see a video examing actual evidence of that and off peasent levies using retooled agricultural more generally, or if its just a myth.
Thanks for your great videos dude.
Agricultural bills were likely pressed into service and the martial bill likely developed from agricultural tools (a lot of weapons were developed from agricultural tools). But the martial bills being bought to equip armies as referred to in this video were purpose designed and built weapons not a modified tool.
It's very interesting when you look back in history and see something like this - basically an evolution of the spear - and realize this is advancing technology in its day. It might seem obvious to us that adding an extra hook here and a spike there would make the weapon more versatile, yet it was quite late (in medieval history) before it became mainstream.
Two of the biggest advantages of the spear were its simplicity and cost effectiveness. The more complex heads of a bill etc are going to be substantially more expensive and more complex for a levy to use.
You also see firearms developed, they moved to more simple pikes as the predominant polearm (often with a smaller number of halberds integrated into the formation).
I remember that in a lot of these muster rolls- reading "can do good service with an axe"... or something similar. Quite generic but might mean a poleaxe although that was seen more as a gentleman's weapon on foot at this time.
In England, what was the difference between a man-at-arms/gendarme and an armagier? Just having their owm heraldery, or was there more to it?
Question - Generally speaking, what was the proportion of archers and billmen/polearm users to knights/men-at-arms in the Wars of the Roses?
Would it be closer to 5-1 or 10-1 or 15-1?
Was there a term for the polearm infantry before they were known as billmen?
Yes
What about a little earlier? Could I expect to find bills at Agincourt? Because I have looked, but in combination of other things to do and lack of resources you do I couldn’t find anything.
According to "THE SOLDIER IN LATER MEDIEVAL ENGLAND website the section WAS YOUR ANCESTOR ON THE AGINCOURT CAMPAIGN WITH HENRY V? gives a resume of numbers of men-at-arms and archers. In one noble's muster the men-at-arms are called ‘escuiers’ (we call it esquire or squire.) Elsewhere they are called lances. These would be anyone with a hand weapon that wasn't a bow. (Probably consisting of a polearm of varying length, sword and knife.) The only other category (apart knights and nobles) were archers (called *vallettes") I'd give a URL but they tend to result in the post getting zapped.
What about earlier 15th and 14th (ie HYW)? The art would indicate that spears are still the dominant foot troops weapon?
I've always assumed they were "whatever-pointy-thing-you-got-men."
Also, I had no idea we were Byll-buddies with the Italians! Cool!
Were the weapons of war at these times owned by men in the villiages who were "drafted" by the "lord of the manor"? Or were they kept by the lord in his armory and then given to the "troops" before a battle? Weapons are expensive, and I wouldn't think the people could afford to buy them. On the other hand, I wouldn't think the lord would buy all these weapons and then give them out to the "troops" hoping they will maintain them in good condition until needed for some battle in the future.
Perry miniatures stepping up to be the best once again!
When in the later period billmen were called billmen: Where they still mixed polearm users, or were they at that point only using bills?
Billman being refered to as a specific troop type might be more to do with specialisation or a rise in variety of weapons (thus needing specific names tk delineate) though i am saying this without reading any of the sources - you can call this comment "lightly researched"
Dumb question, but I'm curious, were villains subject to compulsory service in some form.If so to who?
Talk more about Reenactment! It's a closed society with no one giving good insights. How much force do you use in combat? How do you handle ranged weapons? How different is battlefield from HEMA fighting? How elitist can they get?
Considered by some to be the most likely weapon to have done in Richard III.
That was a halberd, no?
If we want to delve a bit deeper into the language, could "bill" simply mean "polearm" in the time period considered. A bit like "sword" has come to mean "bayonet" in the rifles regiment. Based on its historical meaning, but comes to mean a whole range of arms. Just a thought. Maybe its problematic to fix our understanding around a singular term?
Am i right to assume "bill" must be a cognate to german "beil" meaning small axe?
I like that you said “some sort of formation”. I commend you for sticking to what we know about ancient and medieval warfare, which is practically nothing. Pretty much everything in regards to tactics and formations is purely speculative and the products of peoples imaginations. This is due to the fact that there are no sources that describe any formations, strategy, or tactics. There are no manuscripts, tactical doctrines, or manuals. There are a few pictures of knights in combat in medieval chronicles, but these were drawn after the event by people who were not there, so again, a product of the imagination.
Hi Matt! I have a question that popped in my mind yesterday... the "king of the battlefield" was usually the spear for its range, cheapness and overall effectiveness... why the hell are there no short sword-length spears as a sidearm instead of swords or axes?! Isn't that a logical approach? I mean sure, i imagine a sword is more effective as a sidearm but i literally never heard of any one-handed-short-spear as a sidearm and i find that to be completely implausible.... could you pls talk about that for a minute? thank you very much in advance :)
Well, spears are basically dagger/sword with very long hilt. So a shorter short spears...
The Zula iklwa is a short spear used with a shield. I don't know whether they were worn like sidearms. Wearing a short spear seems a touch awkward, though certainly not impossible.
It’s because the chief advantage of a spear is reach. Once the enemy gets *inside* the reach of your spear it is not very effective, as they can push the shaft away with a free hand. A sword is sharp over the whole of its blade and harder to parry as a result.
Zulu iklwa, but that's almost a sword.
Thanks for the video 👍🏻
I mean, depending on what specific Battle in the Wars of the Roses we're looking at, Infantry may well be armed with long hunting knives and pitchforks 🤷♂️ like any civil war, armament will vary according to availability, faction and the wealth or strength of a given faction. I think it's maybe closer to assume there was a generally non-uniform mishmash of whatever sharp metal bit could be fitted to a pole through most of the period
I don' t know english situation, because i am german from Württemberg. Here there had been different types of , fighting men' during 15th/ 16th/ 17th century. The most dangerous and best equipped seem to have been hired mercenaries, some relicts of medieval feudal levies existed into 1630s.Even then, about 1630, Duke of Württemberg mobilized his ,vassals' as small mounted force. For the reason, that 1514 , Treaty of Tübingen ' gave württembergian Parlament/ Landtag more rights than in all other german state, the Dukes had long into 18th century problems to establish a fightable, standing army'. So the hired mercenaries or later standing army had low numbers. The Parlament/ Landtag prefered for tradition and cheapness the Landesdefension ( Translation not really necessary). Every district/ Oberamt had to train and equip a number of militiamen. But in some battles of Thirty Years War (1618- 1648) , for example Wimpfen or Nördlingen, this militias suffered terrible losses, Low quality of Training and Equipment. But in case of emergency, but in reality rather rare, it was in HRE for noble or spiritual Lords, or the rulers of , imperial territories' possible, to mobilize the Landsturm ( you surely have heared of wwll Volkssturm). In this case every halfway fightable man had to fight. But in the rare cases, this Landsturm was mobilized in 17th/ 18th century, the levies had usually no training, equipment? Few outdated weapons like matchlock muskets and polearms, but mostly dangerous Tools, selfmade weapons, and the rather few private weapons. So usually this Landsturm was only usefull als armed workforce , guard- and policeforce.
@brittakriep2938 England and the American colonies were very much the same until the 19th century.
But if we focus on the context of the Wars of the Roses, there were 3 or 4 major peasant uprisings, in which the peasantry were generally poorly armed and led, though they did manage to succeed on a handful or battlefields. There were also many small private wars fought between noble families who disliked each other and took advantage of the weak monarchy. These wars consisted of noblemen of various ranks and their household retainers, who were all well armed and trained, bolstered by peasant levies from the farms and villages the nobles owned. Some of these peasant levies had good quality arms and armor, such as halberds, pikes, or bill hooks, brigandines or cuirasses, and helmets such as kettle-hats. Many of these levies would, however, have had rather poor equipment such as a leather jack and a simple spear or axe.
Mercenaries were absolutely present in all the largest battles of this period, as well as many smaller ones. These most often came from Flanders, Calais, Ireland and Scotland, and their equipment also varied substantially depending upon where they came from, but as a rule such men were a better equipped than the peasant levies and possessed substantial experience fighting in other parts of Europe, giving them a tactical advantage on the field.
@@tmmccormick86 :What you describe, is not uncommon to me. Why? In the time periode Mr. Easton describes, from 1460s to 1530s, current Germany was HRE, devided into over 300 states. On paper the Roman Emperor ( they called themself NOT German Emperor) was head and ruler of HRE , supported by the noble Lords, spiritual Lords and members of empirial Staff, from time to time a Reichstag/ imperial diet was hold, to clear problems of internal or foreign policy. But in reality the rulers of the many territories did what they wanted, using the since late 13th century starting weakness of Roman Emperor for their own success. A Note: Up to 1496 german knights had been NO part of Nobility. In 1496 the then ruling Emperor Maximilian l , was powerfull enough, to establish Reichskreise / Military districts in which every state had to send a number of soldiers ( depending on size of state) to Form a regulated Reichsarmee/ Army of the Empire ( in addition to the Kaiserliche Armee/ Army of the Emperor). And the Reichstage, formerly only from time to time, became a permanent Parlament in town Regensburg. Not included in this system had been the territories of Imperial Knights and other ,Strangities' of HRE.
My homeregion belonged to Reichskreis / Military district Swabia , and consisted of exactly 100 states (!), look on a map: Between Rivers Rhine and Lech, Lake of Constance and a Line, from northern end of Black Forrest. About 20 to 30 Spiritual Lords, 20 to 30 Imperial Towns and 40 to 60 Noble Lords. You can Imagine, that the troops of those states over the decades for being small and low trained became nearly useless when in 1790s facing french Revolution Army.
After this Overview, and after my other comment, a comeback to late 15th/ early 16th century. There had been inside of HRE many small wars between this, especially in my Region, smaller states, without foreign Powers. Then there had been wars with foreign Powers, in which only some german states had been involved, for example Burgundian Wars, rarely Wars of full HRE with foreign Powers. And often the Fehden/ feuds (?) of the Knights caused much Trouble, originaly an allowed behaviour of the Knights, when Justice problems existed and a Knight feeled betrayed, but for numerous reasons, the Knights oversretched their rights. This feuds often became large, because the Knights mobilized not only their servants and farmers, but also mobilized their Knights Class friends with their men, or the reasons for the feud was very constructed and so the feud became more a robbery act than an allowed feud, you surely have heared about german Raubritter/ robbery Barons ( Baronett would be more precise). In 1496 this feuds had been forbidden, but they really ended in early 1520s after the end of a Knights Rebellion led by a then very famous Knight. And farmers rebellions , sometimes also citizens rebellions happened, but mostly on small Level. But in 1524 to 1526 a series of larger farmers rebellions happened, in 1525 the largest Rebellion happened, both in Swabia and Thuringia , and for a short time Nobility was in heavy trouble, a success seemed possible.
Now, the fighting men and their equipment was/ had been so different, like you told it in your description of English Situation.
They existed in my country. The Rus infantry that took part in the battle of Grunwald (1410) used such pole arms.
I actually like to think about the fact that I descend from nobility so I would be a one with retinue. However I descend from pretty low nobility so mostly I wonder how shitty my retinue would be :)
I would certainly say they existed prior too. After all, bills are rather ancient and as agricultural tools turned weapons of war were found in Merovingian graves of 7th century. Many wine making, farming or forest rich fiefdoms and cities adopted bills as symbols and charges of their coats of arms across central Europe and we have Italian manuals speaking of forest bill weapons in, I think 13th and 14th century. It would make sense for, at the very least levies, to buy such cheaper to make and maintain weapons, if they wanted something heavier than a spear, to supplement the voulges, fauchards, partisans, glaives and the likes...
Matt - off top - I have a weird question for you: Have you ever tried fencing with drunk goggles? And do you think it would be a fair fight: master in drunk goggles vs noob? :)
I have... many years ago... I probably should not talk about it publicly though. My basic view is that being drunk hugely messes with your reflexes and distance judgement, but on average makes you way better at taking pain.
@@scholagladiatoriaI think he means actual drunk goggles which are a thing you can buy to simulate drunkenness to a certain extent.
@@scholagladiatoria Of course, I meant the kind of gadget that the police give to children at festivals, and not being really drunk!
Bill, Byll, Halberd, Halbert, Glaive, Guisarme, Yari, Kama Yari etc, ad nauseum. Does it matter? All are polearms, (and despite being called a spear, the yari is used in the same way as a polearm, at least the shorter ones), so we're talking about... a POLEARM. And they can all be used in similar ways. I.E., not just as a thrusting spear. I mean, compare the Naginata vs the Glave. Doesn't really matter what people back then called them, it's how they were used.
What does "Italy" mean in a medieval context? The territory that the modern state of Italy encompasses or something else? I find it somewhat confusing when people use the names of modern states when referring to a historical period in which they did not exist.
Italy was actually referred to as Italy in the medieval period and was defined by the area where Italian was spoken. See Fiore dei Liberi's treatise of 1410 for example, where he refers to Italians and Germans - defined by what language they spoke.
Matt could you do a video on the Anglo Norman nobility of England in the Fourteenth and early Fifteenth century before anglicization fully took place. Especially in comparison to French nobility in the Hundred Years War.
Any idea what they actually called them in the 15th century?
Usually it's simply 'footmen' in the surviving and known accounts of the time, although the term footmen also can include ranged archers on foot as well, as a distinction from the mounted bowmen which also were common in England at the time.