Did Medieval Billmen Exist in the 15th Century? (Wars of the Roses) Crazy Theories or Not? 

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.

Yes, that's certainly a good point

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.

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.

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 RU-vid 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.

My pleasure!

Sounds like something Lloyd would say.

"Catch them with their mouth like that scene in Metalocalypse."

I didn't, because it's bullshit.

Bills are commonly used nowdays as tools still

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.

Thanks!

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.

Mounted archers! There's a complex topic.. I'll have to try and get Mike Loades on.

@@scholagladiatoriainc mounted crossbowmen pleeeeeeeeeeeaaase

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?

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, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZQHfit8b6VA.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?

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

Glad you enjoyed it!

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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 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

Yes, he knows.

Yes

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

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!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

That was a halberd, no?

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

Yes

Yes

It's kind of covered later in the video 😊

Same role in formation but different pole arm concerning Halberds & billhooks! refer to my thread.

Yes it's well understood that the bill originated as an agricultural tool.

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.

Polearms were relatively cheap and simple to employ. And, when the formation held together, very effective against infantry and cavalry. A poorly drilled force of polearms could be ripped apart by archers, but the high quality formations were famed for their mobility and aggressiveness. And on top of that, combined arms were a thing, you generally had your own archers / crossbows and cavalry to play a part in the battle. Finally, I would note that up until WWI, the final decisive action was still generally carried out by men with long pointy sticks. Yeah, guns and artillery could be critical and even cause most casualties and may even determine who would win, but in the end it was the bayonet that took and held the field.

@@88porpoise why not add shields? Hardly more expensive, effective against archers, and if archers are so devastating there's no need to engage other polearms in melee. This is continuation of the pike and shot dynamics where I just can't understand the role of the pike.

@@rat_thrower5604 In the end, pretty much all battles up to the 20th century were decided by men with pointy, sharp and/or heavy objects poking, cutting, and/or beating each other until one side ran. Ranged weapons (whether javelins, bows, crossbows, guns, catapults, ballistae, cannons, etc) served to weaken the enemy so you are more able to win that melee engagement but they rarely broke the enemy on their own. So, you need somebody with melee weapons along with your (pre-socket bayonet) firearms to win the fight. Why do they choose pikes for that purpose rather than something like a sword and shield? Two huge reasons: 1) Horses. A very long spear is the best defense against a cavalry charge. A volley of musket fire might weaken a charge, but it is highly unlikely to stop it and after firing the gunners are highly vulnerable to cavalry. Pikes allow you to stop cavalry before they can threaten you (your pike will project further forward from you than his lance domes from the front of the horse) and it is long enough to typically keep the charging horse from impacting your formation even after being stabbed. 2) The reach advantage in an infantry v infantry fight. If your enemy's formation has longer weapons than you, you are at a massive disadvantage. So you get your pikes to match the other guy's reach with his pikes. Finally, these pikes are really bloody long and require two hands so shields are not really an option.

@@88porpoise thank you for this response. 1) horses. Horses weren't stopped by firepower until 1759 at Minden, yet pikes went out of fashion by the end of the 30 years war. Therefore it's not as simple as rock paper scissors, pike shot cavalry. However, rather than the overlap of Renaissance to early modern, it's the overlap of late medieval to Renaissance that's the issue here. Was it then a (slow) arms race of who had the longest poles? The Renaissance pikes presumably being the longest one could wield, and from then on neither pike block would engage with the other. Lindybeige has a convincing video on why pikes wouldn't fight each other. That length-race seems an interesting idea actually. Missile weapons had become sufficiently potent by the 30 year war that melee troops, especially in their armour, could no longer withstand firepower.

@@rat_thrower5604 Pikes went out of fashion primarily with the ongoing development of bayonets. Yeah, a bayonet on a musket is not as good at being a pike as an actual pike was, but that was considered a worthwhile tradeoff for increasing the firepower.

It's me, but I'm not a professional model.

Looks like V & V Miniatures - 54mm English Billman #1