Life on the Home Front

Just a quick entry today, because I've found something that amused me. Considering the Scots were the only people in 1513 really capable of mounting an invasion of English soil, it seems the threat from the North wasn't taken too seriously in some quarters (particularly those quarters in the South, it must be noted)

Letter from Catherine of Aragon to Wolsey:

At Richmond, 13 day of August [1513]

Master Almoner,

I received both your letter and am very glad to hear how well the king passed his dangerous passage, the Frenchmen being present. [Reference to Henry's recent invasion of France]

Ye be not so busy with the war as we be here encumbered with it. All his subjects be very glad, I thank God, to be busy with the Scots, for they take it for a pastime. My heart is very good to it, and I am horribly busy with making standards, banners, and badges.

Katharina the Qwene

A Tale of Two Hats

Hat #1.

Sometimes the smallest detail can set one off on an interesting avenue of research, and sometimes it can add an entirely unexpected dimension to a living history portrayal. In 2004, for example, the group I was then involved with was gearing up for the 200^th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar celebrations the following year: my father decided he wanted to portray a captain, but didn’t have a suitable sword. The best he could come up with was an Oriental weapon that looked vaguely like the swords some officers of Nelson’s navy carried. Then I found a portrait of Sir Sidney Smith wearing a sword identical to my father’s, and since Smith was an anti-slavery hero and my father is a lifetime member of Anti-Slavery International, it seemed like Providence. A little deeper digging revealed that in 1805 Smith commanded HMS Antelope which, by chance, was the ship we usually used for our Marlburian navy portrayals. So the whole group ended up portraying members of the ship’s company of HMS Antelope, all because of my father’s sword.

I’ve recently had a similar experience with my 1513 portrayal.

Last week I found myself with nothing to do for an evening so instead of breaking out of the Normandy beachhead on the Playstation I decided to make a Tudor hat, using the ‘great bonnet’ pattern from The King’s Servants. I fancied putting a badge on the front, just to tart it up a bit, and happened to have a pewter boar badge handy, so stitched it on. The boar was only going to be a place marker until I could find something more suitable, preferably a Howard livery badge to signify my membership of Admiral Howard’s retinue. The trouble was, that I ran into some difficulty trying to find out what, if anything, Admiral Howard used as a badge. Later in his life he apparently used a cross crosslet fitchy, which appears on his coat of arms, but at the time of Flodden everyone else in his family (at least, his father and younger brother) seem to have sported a silver lion rampant as their badge. The most abundant and accessible source of metal lion badges is kilt and Scottish clothing suppliers, and the idea of buying a lion from a Scottish company to wear while recreating the Flodden campaign certainly appeals to my impish sense of humour, but there was this nagging doubt that it might be the wrong badge.

So, having come across a list of all the different retinues that provided soldiers for the fleet in the 1513 campaign only a few days previously, I thought I’d have a look through the list and see if there was anyone else whose badge was more certain, and give up the idea of being one of Howard’s own retinue. (Not that it really mattered, it’s just a badge on a hat, right?)

Lots of people provided soldiers for the fleet, but on perusing the list I was quite surprised to find that out of a total strength of 3,550 soldiers in March 1513, only 230 were members of the Howard retinue. The largest single retinue was that of Lord Ferrers, which numbered 400 men, but two others caught my eye: 200 men provided by ‘mylord of Deven’ (I live in Devon), and 200 men of the retinue commanded by a man simply identified as ‘Courtney’. In 1513 the Earl of Devon was Henry Courtenay, but clearly the Earl of Devon and the Captain Courtney mentioned in the list were different men (notwithstanding Wikipedia’s assertion to the contrary). Since both retinues were recruited for the same ship, the Trinity Sovereign, commanded by captains ‘Cornewall and Courtney’ it seemed likely that the unidentified ‘Courtney’ was related, or at least connected, to the Earl of Devon. What is significant, to this blog at least, is that the livery badge of the Courtenays of Devon was a boar.

So, who were Cornewall and Courtney? Was Captain Courtney definitely one of the Devon Courteney clan?

Before the 1513 campaign really kicked off, Cornewall and Courtney were transferred to the command of a new ship, the Maria de Loreta, and in all probability took the bulk of their soldiers with them, since the normal practice appears to have been to keep men and commanders together, and since their replacement in the Trinity Sovereign was Lord Ferrers, who had a substantial retinue of his own. Furthermore, the Maria de Loreta was a new addition to the fleet, and had no pre-embarked retinue of soldiers.

A list of naval expenses drawn up in September 1513 includes receipts for conduct money paid to soldiers in the fleet, two of which relate to the Maria de Loreta. The first is signed by ‘Richard Cornewayll and W. Courtenay’, the second signed by ‘Wm. Courteney’. The clue of the first names of Cornewall and Courtenay leads to a much better identification, for a William Courtenay and a Richard Cornwall were both bound for a recognizance of 500 marks not to travel more than 2 miles from London in January 1512, and were both absolved of their recognizance in March of that year. What they had done to be so bound is unknown, but it’s fortunate for me that they did it, because it means that Captain Courtenay can be positively identified as William Courtenay of Powderham (1485-1535), kinsman of the Earl of Devon. The identification of ‘Captain Courtney’ as William Courtenay of Powderham is made more certain by two grants: one to Edward Cresswell, ‘in William Courtenay’s company’, signed by ‘Wellyam Courtenay, Squer’, and the other to Roger Gyffarde, ‘retained to serve in the war under William Courteney of Ylton, Devon.’ William Courtenay of Powderham also held land at Ilton, near Kingsbridge, and his full title given in some documents was William Courtney of East Coker, Powderham, and Ilton.

Furthermore, the livery badge of the Courtenays of Powderham was also a boar.

Coker Court, Somerset, William Courtenay’s home until 1512

Powderham Castle, Devon, Courtenay’s home from 1512

So having established the identity of Captain Courtenay, my attention turned to another Courtenay in the list of captains in the 1513 fleet, Richard Courtenay of the Michael of Plymouth. Another Courtenay in command of a Devon ship, surely too much of a coincidence not to be a relative? At some point in 1513 command of the Michael (sometimes referred to as the Michael Rote, or Michael Ratt) passed into the hands of another man, and in 1514 Richard Courtenay is found in command of the Margaret of Dartmouth, another Devon ship (which incidentally had a company of 30 soldiers, 37 mariners and 3 gunners).

Dartmouth Castle, virtually brand new when Richard Courtenay commanded the Margaret.

Is there a connection between this Courtenay and the other Courtenays? Of course there is, or I wouldn’t be writing about him now. The man who took command of the Michael of Plymouth after Richard Courtenay was none other than Edward Cresswell who, on 6 June 1513, was appointed ‘captain of a ship called The Mighell Ratt, of Plymouth, in William Courtenay's company.’ Since the Michael was a hired ship the choice of captain fell to the ship’s owner – in this case, apparently, William Courtenay of Powderham. So the fact that William Courtenay earlier appointed Richard Courtenay to command the vessel suggests most strongly that Richard was a relative. I haven’t yet managed to positively identify him, but it’s possible that he was Richard Courtenay of Lostwithiel, a member of a cadet branch of the Powderham family.

So, lots of Courtenays involved in the 1513 fleet, as captains and owners, and at least 400 Courtenay retainers enlisted as soldiers. What’s more, 300 of the Courtenay soldiers were earmarked to join landing parties from the fleet, so they were among the men who saw land service on the various attacks on the defences of Brittany (more about those in a later blog), and were thus probably among the men taken by Howard to fight at Flodden. The pig can stay on the hat.

Hat #2.

My helmet dilemma mentioned in the last entry has been solved. I’ve been offered a second-hand open-faced sallet at a reasonable price…

When is a 'Salette' not a sallet?

It’s been a while since my last entry, and there’s been some progress: hose are nearly finished, the first shirt has been started, I’ve found some wool to make a doublet, and I’ve got green and white wool samples for making the coat. I’ve even dragged my armour out of the shed, cleaned most of the rust off, and given it a coat of oil. What’s more, I’ve found time to start repairing the boots that I thought were irreparable. I plan to invest in some new boots as well, but there didn’t seem much point in having boots lying around that couldn’t be worn.

Most recently, though, I have been thinking about helmets…

The inventory of equipment from the Henry Grace a Dieu that forms one of the main sources of information for this portrayal (see THIS POST) includes mention of 200 ‘salettes’. Nowadays, the term ‘sallet’ is almost exclusively used to described a particular kind of helmet, familiar to anyone who’s been to a late medieval re-enactment event, with a sweeping tail at the back to protect the neck. The trouble is that it is doubtful that the term was used so specifically in 1514, and in most cases it was probably just an alternative term for, and interchangeable with, ‘helmet’.

 These examples show some of the different styles of sallet in production at the end of the 15^th century.

So, accepting that the ‘salettes’ mentioned in the inventory could have been sallets in the modern sense of the word, but could equally have been some other kind of helmet, what would be the most suitable style of helmet to represent a soldier of the Admiral’s Division at Flodden?

There are various possibilities:

It could be a sallet such as those shown above, or in the ‘classic’ bellows-face style of the early 16^th century:

Or a kettle hat:

Or, simplest of all, a skull cap or ‘secret’:

But which?

In an effort to figure out which would be the most appropriate I have done a bit of analysis of helmets in period illustrations. Looking at north European depictions of infantrymen from c.1500-1525 one thing becomes immediately obvious: most of the soldiers depicted either aren’t wearing helmets at all or are so crudely drawn or partially hidden by other figures that it’s impossible to tell what kind of helmet they are wearing. Nevertheless, fourteen pictures yielded up 47 identifiable helmets, in the following proportions:

16 open-faced sallets

14 skull caps

8 kettle hats

5 visored or closed-faced sallets

4 other types (2 helmets made of overlapping scales, 1 armet or closed helm, 1 landsknechthaube)

“Bad War” by Hans Holbein, c.1524, showing a skull cap (right) and scaled helmet (centre)

English printed account of the battle of Flodden, showing a variety of sallets.

Detail from Hans Burgkmair’s engraving of the Battle of the Spurs, showing English archers in sallets, skull caps, and at least one kettle hat.

Perhaps one of the most relevant illustrations is this oft-reproduced depiction of the Battle of Flodden by Hans Burgkmair.

Although Burgkmair was German and was not present at Flodden, the attention to detail in a number of his illustrations showing English troops suggests that he was to some extent familiar with their appearance. In the Flodden illustration, for example, the English troops are easily distinguished from the fleeing Scots.

None of this really helps in my quest for a helmet.

Based on the illustrations an open-faced sallet or a skull cap would seem the most likely thing, but the Burgkmair illustrations do suggest a certain number of kettle hats among English troops. None of the illustrations show anything even resembling a bellows-face sallet, so although they were definitely around in 1513 I’m going to strike it off my list of possibles.

That leaves me to choose between an open-faced sallet, skull cap or kettle hat…

The Other Mob - Scots mariners, 1512

I was recently introduced to the Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, and particularly volume IV, covering the years 1507-1513. This wonderfully detailed source contains many entries relating to clothing supplied to the household and retainers of James IV. I dived in, hoping to find references to clothing and equipment destined for James’ rapidly developing fleet. James IV was every bit as maritime-minded as Henry VIII, and his growing fleet represented a formidable threat to English commerce. James had also placed his ships at the disposal of his ally, Francis I, whose own fleet in the Channel threatened England’s southern shores (more on the Battle of Saint Mathieu and the invasion of Brighton in a later post…). Moreover, one of the first actions Sir Thomas Howard fought at sea was against the Scottish pirate Andrew Barton (hmm, more on that later too I think).

So, although my primary interest here is with the soldiers and seamen of the English fleet, it can’t hurt to know a bit about the Scots mariners as well. Unfortunately, references to the clothing and equipment of mariners in the Accounts are limited. There’s lots of interesting information about the ships, and quite a lot of stuff on the men (including a lot of mariners’ names, for those excited by genealogy), but not a great deal on their appearance. In fact, the only detailed reference in the volume relates to clothing provided to the crew of a vessel commanded by ‘the Dutch skipper’, Andrew Johnson. Whether Johnson’s ship was Scottish or Dutch, and the nationalities of his crew are hard to ascertain, but the information on clothing may still be relevant. In the first place, it is quite possible that Johnson was a foreign skipper in command of a vessel crewed by Scotsmen, and secondly, whatever the nationality of the ship, skipper, and crew, they were nonetheless in the service of the Scottish king, were paid by him, and had their clothing provided by him. It is quite possible, then, that the clothing provided for Johnson and his men is representative of the clothing of Scottish seamen at the same time. So here’s what it says:

A.D. 1512.
Item the xxvj day of Marche, boght to be the Duche skipper at brocht the Kingis Mastis, ane goune, xv elnis blak chamlot; price elne x s.;summa vij ll. x s.
Item, to bordoure the sclewez of it, boght half ane quarter welvot; price… v s. ix
Item, for ane lyning of quhet lamskynnis and the werkmenschip tharof to the said goune… xxxvj s.
Item, to be him ane doublet, deliverit ij elnis iij quartaris welvot; price elne xliiij s.; summa… vjll. xij d.
Item, to be hyme ane coit, iij elnis Franche gray; price elne xjs; summa … xxxiij s.
Item, to be hyme ane pair of hoise, iij quartaris braid red; price … xiij s. vj d
Item, to the tymmerman and sterisman of the said Duche skippar and his schip, to be thame cotis, doubletis and hoise; xiiij elnis red carsay; price elne v s. summa iii ll. x s.
Item, to xxiiij marineris of the said Duche skipparis schip, to be thame doubletis and hoise, lxxij½ elnis blew and greyne carsais; price elne iiij s. vj d; summa xvj ll. vj s. ix d.
Item, to the said xxiiij wrichtis for their cotis, boght xlvij elnis iij quartaris yallow carsay; price elne iiij s viij d; summa … x ll. xviij s. x d.

Which, roughly translated, means:

A.D. 1512.
Item, the 26th day of March, bought for the Dutch skipper that brought the King’s masts, one gown, 15 ells black camlet; price [per] ell 10s.; total £7 10s.
Item, to border the sleeves of it, bought one eighth of an ell of velvet; price… 5s 4d
Item, for one lining of white lamb skins and the workmanship thereof to the said gown… 36s.
Item, to make him a doublet, delivered 2 ¾ ells velvet; price [per] ell 44s.; total… £6 7d.
Item, to make him a coat, 3 ells French grey; price [per] ell 11s; total… 33s.
Item, to make him a pair of hose, ¾ ell of red broadcloth; price … 13s. 6d
Item, to the carpenter and steersman of the said Dutch skipper and his ship, to be their coats, doublets and hose; 14 ells red kersey; price [per] ell 5s. total £3 10s.
Item, to 24 mariners of the said Dutch skipper’s ship, to be their doublets and hose, 72½ ells blue and grey kerseys; price [per] ell 4s 6d; total £16 6s 9d.
Item, to the said 24 wrights [presumably an error for ‘mariners’, as shipwrights’ clothing is dealt with elsewhere] for their coats, bought 47 ¾ ells yellow kersey; price [per] ell 4s 8d; total… £10 18s 10d

So, how big is an ell? The trouble here is that there were numerous different measurements that might be described as an ell, ranging from 18” up to 54”, depending on where you are in the world and when you’re asking. The Scottish ell was only standardised in the seventeenth century, but at that time was 37” (Scottish inches that is, not Imperial inches, though the difference is tiny enough to be ignored). In 1512 then, it’s not unreasonable to equate the Scottish ells mentioned in this text to an Imperial yard… roughly.

The skipper’s hose are made from broadcloth which, as the name suggests, was woven in broader widths than other cloths, so the fact that only ¾ of an ell was used in their construction makes comparison a little difficult, but it seems safe to assume that, had they been made of narrower cloth they would have required somewhere in the region of 1¼ yards, the same amount needed for hose given to Henry VIII’s household (see The King’s Servants). Working on that assumption, some quick calculations show that the skipper’s coat, doublet and hose required seven ells of fabric for their construction. The same garments made for the carpenter and steersman also required seven ells for their construction, so it is fair to assume that they were of more or less the same design as the master’s.

The mariners’ clothing, however, required only five ells, indicating that they were different in their construction. The mariners’ coats were made from one ell less fabric than the officers’, and a further ell was scrimped on their doublet and hose. Since it would be almost impossible to ‘lose’ an ell of fabric, or even half and ell, from a pair of hose, it’s reasonable to conclude that the material was taken from their doublets.

Comparison with the fabric allowances for Henry VIII’s household, detailed in The King’s Servants, sheds some interesting light. Hose seem to have been pretty standard, taking about 1¼ yards/ells, whichever side of the border they were made. Doublets in the English household were made from three yards, which compares roughly with the 2¾ ells allowed in Scotland for the ship’s officers. There’s a big difference in the ‘coats’ though, which in England were made from as much as eight yards, but in Scotland took only a quarter of that amount for mariners’ coats and well under half for officers’. Clearly, the garment described as a coat in the Scottish accounts was very different to the garment of that name in England.

Followers of the Admiral’s Man may recall comments in my last entry on the difference, or not, between coats and jackets issued to English seamen. Briefly recapping, the same short skirted garments, with full or half length sleeves, were variously described in English sources as either ‘coats’ or ‘jackets’. If ‘coat’ can refer to a shorter garment, then, it seems probable that the ‘coats’ issued to Scottish seamen were similar to those issued to their English counterparts, that is, close bodied garments with short pleated skirts and either half or full length sleeves. This still doesn’t explain the discrepancy in the amount of material used, but it may be as simple as that the officers’ doublets and coats had full length sleeves while the mariners’ coats had half length sleeves. Mariners’ doublets may have had no sleeves at all.

Another point of interest is that none of the garments apart from the skipper’s gown appear to have been lined. It may be that for some administrative reason the lining materials were not mentioned, or were mentioned elsewhere, but it may be that the garments were actually unlined.

With all this wild speculation in mind, it seems likely that the mariners of the Scottish fleet were dressed in a similar fashion to their English counterparts, probably looking like to figures in some of the pictures in my last post, with blue/grey doublet and hose and a yellow jacket with half-sleeves. Petty officers may have looked very similar, but all in red and with full length sleeves. Masters, if the ‘Duche skipper’ is anything to go by, wore red hose, a velvet doublet, grey long-sleeved jacket, and a black gown lined with lamb.

Now, to find out what the French were wearing…

(And just because a blog without pictures looks dull, here's a model of the pride of James IV's navy, the Great Michael)

Thanks to Dave Roberts and Tudor Cook for their input.

Mariners’ Jackets: Sir Edward Howard’s Indenture, Part 2.

In the last post I mentioned the coats and jackets referred to in this indenture between Admiral Howard and the king in 1512:

Indenture between Henry VIII. and Sir Edward Howard, witnessing that the said Admiral shall command the fleet now ready for sea with 3,000 men of war, over and above the 700 soldiers, mariners, and gunners in The Regent. His wages to be 10s., and every captain's, 1s. 6d. per diem; every soldier's, mariner's, and gunner's, 5s. per month wages, and 5s. per month victuals. Coats of every captain and soldier 4s., of every mariner and gunner 20d. Is to return at the end of three months to Southampton to revictual. His fleet to consist of 18 ships (portage and deadshares of each given); sc. The Regent of 1,000 tons, The Mary Rose of 500 tons, The Peter Pomegranet of 400, John Hopton's ship 400, The Nicholas Reede 400, The Mary John 240, The Anne of Greenwich, 160, The Mary George 300, The Dragon 100, The Lyon 120, The Barbara 140, The George of Falmouth 140, The Peter of Fowey 120, The Nicholas of Hampton ten score tons, The Martenet 9 score tons, The Genet 70 tons, The Christopher Davy 160 tons, The Sabyen 120. To have 2 crayers for revictualling. Conduct money for soldiers, &c., to be 6d. per day, from their homes to the place of shipment, accounting 12 miles for a day's journey. Half the prizes, &c., to be reserved for the King. Dated 8 April 3 Hen. VIII. (Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 1: 1509-1514, item. 3,117)

Astute readers will no doubt have noticed that this indenture doesn’t actually mention ‘jackets’ per se, but it does distinguish between coats for soldiers and coats for seamen. The only difference apparent from this document is that the mariners’ coats cost less than half the price of the soldiers’ coats. All other things being equal this suggests that the garments themselves were different, but it could mean only that cheaper materials were used for the mariners’ coats.

Other related documents, however, do use different terms for the garments. Sir Edward Howard’s accounts, for example, record ‘coats to soldiers at 4s’ and ‘jackets to mariners at 20d’.

So, what can we safely assume about mariners’ jackets?

• Virtually all of the livery issued to the fighting men of Henry VIII’s army at this date was green and white parti-coloured, so it seems reasonable, pending the discovery of contradictory evidence, to suppose that the mariners’ jackets were also green and white. A letter written by Venetian Antonio Bavarin, quoted in THIS POST describes the English mariners dressed in green and white, and is almost certainly a reference to the jackets mentioned in the indenture.

• It also seems reasonable to suppose that the mariners’ jackets were shorter than the soldiers’ coats for two reasons. A. the much reduced cost of the jackets is suggestive of less material and labour in their construction, and B. mariners in general throughout history have often adopted shorter jackets than their landsman counterparts because of the practical requirements of working at sea.

There are some good examples of short jackets being worn by seamen in this contemporary picture of the fight between the English ship Regent and Breton ship Cordeliere at the Battle of Saint-Mathieu in 1512.

And some more detailed views:

All of these fellows appear to be dressed in short red jackets, and particularly in the first and third pictures the shape – pinched waist, and short, flared skirts – is clearly discernible. It would be very tempting to suppose that the uniformity of the jackets in the painting was indicative of men in a red livery, were it not for the fact that every mariner in the picture is wearing red, regardless of whether he’s English or Breton. Clearly the artist just had his red paint out when he came to colouring in the people… Nevertheless, here’s a contemporary depiction of seamen in short jackets.

The next question, for me, is whether short jackets of this kind were ever issued in livery colours, effectively as shorter versions of the soldiers’ coats. The arrival of The King’s Servants (which, by the way, was delivered very promptly after I ordered it; positive feedback for The Tudor Tailor) fortuitously introduced me to some pictures from the Westminster Tournament Roll of 1511.

This first picture shows men wearing base coats in livery colours, similar to the soldiers’ coats of the period and, presumably, the soldiers’ coats mentioned in the Howard indenture.

These chaps here, though, are wearing much shorter garments, similar to those being worn by the seamen in the Battle of Saint-Mathieu picture above, and similar to what I suppose the mariners’ jackets in the Howard accounts looked like. Crucially, they are in the same parti-coloured livery as the longer base coats in the first picture: evidence that short jackets were issued in livery.

These pictures are quite detailed and give enough information to start thinking about a tentative reconstruction. Key points to note include:

• They are front-centre fastening.

• There is no sign of any fastening, so possibly they were closed with hooks and eyes.

• The skirts appear to be shaped rather than pleated. Although there are some marks which might be interpreted as pleating, they are not nearly so clear as the very obvious pleats in the skirts of the long coats in the first picture.

• They have a square neck-line front and back

• They appear to be fitted with elbow length ‘demi-sleeves’, and worn over a doublet, which is also in the livery colours. I thought at first that they might be puffed upper sleeves attached to fitted lower sleeves, but looking carefully at the point where the two sleeves meet, especially on the lower-left figure and the right arm of the upper-left figure, I think it’s clear that the upper half of the sleeve ends in a cuff.

Looks like I’ll have to add to my list of stuff to make…

I remain etc. etc.

You can find some interesting things when you look… Sir Edward Howard’s Indenture, Part 1.

Some time ago I came across a 1512 reference to ‘coats’ being issued to soldiers and officers of the fleet, and ‘jackets’ being issued to mariners and gunners. My intention with the current project is to assemble the kit to portray a soldier from the fleet in 1513, but as a future project it might be fun to augment the kit so that I can also portray a mariner. I’m quite interested, therefore, in the differences between these coats and jackets, so I followed up the reference to one of its two original sources, and found some other interesting collateral information in the process. I’ll come on to jackets in Part 2, but first, here’s the text of the document in question:

Indenture between Henry VIII. and Sir Edward Howard, witnessing that the said Admiral shall command the fleet now ready for sea with 3,000 men of war, over and above the 700 soldiers, mariners, and gunners in The Regent. His wages to be 10s., and every captain's, 1s. 6d. per diem; every soldier's, mariner's, and gunner's, 5s. per month wages, and 5s. per month victuals. Coats of every captain and soldier 4s., of every mariner and gunner 20d. Is to return at the end of three months to Southampton to revictual. His fleet to consist of 18 ships (portage and deadshares of each given); sc. The Regent of 1,000 tons, The Mary Rose of 500 tons, The Peter Pomegranet of 400, John Hopton's ship 400, The Nicholas Reede 400, The Mary John 240, The Anne of Greenwich, 160, The Mary George 300, The Dragon 100, The Lyon 120, The Barbara 140, The George of Falmouth 140, The Peter of Fowey 120, The Nicholas of Hampton ten score tons, The Martenet 9 score tons, The Genet 70 tons, The Christopher Davy 160 tons, The Sabyen 120. To have 2 crayers for revictualling. Conduct money for soldiers, &c., to be 6d. per day, from their homes to the place of shipment, accounting 12 miles for a day's journey. Half the prizes, &c., to be reserved for the King. Dated 8 April 3 Hen. VIII. (Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 1: 1509-1514, item. 3,117)

The first thing that I found interesting about this was that soldiers were paid 5 shillings per month. When recreating a character I like to have a rough idea of how much they earned, so that’s a nice find for me. But what really struck me is that apart from the ship’s captain there appears to be no distinction in the wages of any other officers or petty officers. However, a later document in the same volume is also of interest:

The Trinyte Sovereigne.—To Sir Thomas Wyndham, vice-admiral, 10s. a day; Sir Arthur Plantagenet, captain, 18d. a day; 299 soldiers, 260 mariners and 40 gunners, at 5s. a man per month; 37½ "dedshares" at 5s. each; rewards to the master gunner, 5s. a month, his mate and 4 quartermasters 2s. 6d. a month, and 34 other gunners, 20d. a piece; two clerks to the admiral at 8d. a day. Total, 178l. 14s.

The ‘dedshares’, or dead shares, were a form of accounting fiction which involved an increase in the number of men to be paid wages, the excess money being divided up to provide extra sums for officers. In this case the extra money is paid to the master gunner and his subordinates. This second document also shows, for what it’s worth, that soldiers’ wages were the same in 1514 as they were in 1512 – it’s a safe assumption that they were 5 shillings a month in 1513.

One final thought on the indenture. Soldiers were to be paid 6d per day ‘conduct money’, that is, a kind of travelling expenses payment intended to be spent on food and lodging while the troops made their way from wherever they were recruited to their port of embarkation. The same soldiers could be fed and housed in their ships for only 5 shillings per month. It’s also very interesting to note that they were only expected to travel twelve miles per day. Presumably this was not a forced marching pace, but even so, it still seems a fairly small distance. Modern army marching speed is reckoned to be 4 miles per hour, so even at a strolling speed of 3mph twelve miles ought to be doable in four hours. Factoring in some time spent resting, eating, and getting lost, plus dealing with poor quality roads, twelve miles per day is still fairly easy going. A bit more research reveals, however, that Howard’s contingent from the fleet landed at Newcastle, marched 60 odd miles North to Flodden, fought the battle, and returned to their ships at Newcastle in the space of sixteen days, so perhaps twelve miles per day is about right.

And further this informant saith not.

The list emerges

In my quest to outfit myself as one the Admiral’s division at Flodden, 1513, I’ve been digging through cupboards, braving spiders in the attic, and burrowing through piles of junk in the shed to figure out what kit I already have that can be part of the portrayal. The shed yielded up the cuirass and splints of my almain rivet armour, two bills, and a pair of mitten gauntlets in need of some tlc. Out of the attic came some long medieval boots but on reflection I think they’re unsuitable for the portrayal and in need of too much repair. In cupboards and corners I managed to find various blades and assorted bits and bobs that might be useful…

But first things first! I really ought to begin with a list of what’s needed.

The equipment for soldiers in the fleet can be ascertained to some extent by surviving supply documents relating to the equipment issued to the soldiers and mariners of the Henry Grace a Dieu in 1513 and 1514.

In 1513 the Henry Grace a Dieu was manned by 400 soldiers, 260 seamen, and 40 gunners, but carried supplies including 2,000 bows, 1,500 bills, and 1,500 pikes, but only 500 sets of ‘harness’ or armour. There’s clearly a discrepancy, which can probably be explained best if the majority of the bills, bows, and pikes were intended for use by Henry’s army in France, rather than the soldiers who made up the complement of the ship. To some extent this is borne out by the records of the equipment left in the ship after the army had disembarked, which included:

‘Bowes of Ewe – cxxiiij…

Hole chests of arrows – iij

Billys – cxliiij

Moryspykes – lxxx

Backes and Brestes of Almyne Ryvettes of ether – cc

Splentes – clxxxxviii payer

Salettes – cc

Standardes of Mayle – cc’

[Quoted in M. Oppenheim, A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy and of Merchant Shipping in Relation to the Navy, vol. 1, MDIX-MDCLX (London, 1896), pp. 56, 380-3810]

Antonio Bavarin, representative in London of the Venetian firm of Pesari, wrote to his employers in April 1513, describing the fitting out of the fleet for Henry’s expedition to France that year.

‘Besides a double complement of sailors to work the ships, there was a body of 16,000 picked soldiers, well supplied with provisions and the like. The King had given a coat of green and white damask, his own colours, to each of the captains; a coat of camlet to each of the pilots, pinnaces, and masters; and a coat of good woollen cloth, green and white, to each of the sailors and soldiers’. [CSP Venetian, vol. 2, item 237].

Roughly then, this suggests that the 400 soldiers who remained aboard the Henry Grace a Dieu as part of her complement were divided between unarmoured archers and armoured men armed with either bills or pikes. The billmen were equipped with a livery coat of green and white, corselet of almain rivet, splints, mail standard, and helmet. Curiously, no mention is made of sidearms – swords, bucklers, daggers etc – but it’s most probable that the soldiers had them and they were simply overlooked in the inventory.

So, here’s the list:

Clothing.

At this stage I have a rough idea of what clothing I’m going to need for my own impression (Mrs the Fox and the cubs will be dealt with in a future blog), but I’m not at all certain on the details. The Tudor Tailor publication The King’s Servants has been highly recommended so I think the first thing is to get myself a copy. At the least I’m going to need:

Shirts

Hose

Doublet

Hat

Shoes

Military Equipment.

Almain rivet corselet

Splints (arm armour)

Mail standard (neck protection)

Sallet – difficult tell for certain what is meant by the word “sallet” in period documents. Sometimes it meant the style of helmet specifically referred to as a sallet, but at other times it just meant “helmet”. Several different types of helmet would be suitable for my portrayal, but I’m going to take the Henry Grace a Dieu document at face value and go for an open faced sallet.

Coat – Woollen base coat in green and white livery

Bill – or pike, but I already have a bill

Sword

Buckler

Accessories and other kit.

Although the above list of kit would be enough to take part in the battle element of a Flodden recreation I’m personally much more excited by the living history side of re-enactment than by combat, so I also need to consider kit that doesn’t directly relate to the battlefield. Stuff to do in camp, stuff to talk to the public about, stuff to make me more comfortable, and the little touches that finish off a good kit…

Dagger

Belts

Pouch

Bedroll

Plates and other eating equipment

Water bottle

Cold weather clothing

Firelighting kit

Personal items – personal hygiene, games, money, knife… that kind of thing.

A bag to carry it all in.

I'm confident that this won't be the end of the list. Over the coming months some of these items might be dropped, and I'm sure that other stuff will be added... but it'll do to be going on with.

I remain etc. etc.,