Since I intend to depict a fairly well-off household archer, I intend to have a reasonably up-to-date higher quality kit when I'm finished. But I'm a bit undecided in how to proceed on the side-arm. Given my status, it seems to me that my weapon would not be some cheap piece of junk, but rather a decent quality weapon of contemporary design. Similar to contemporary knightly weapons, but not as elaborate or well-finished.

I could just go for a simply type XVIII-ish single-handed arming sword, but I'm really attracted to the type XVa hand and halfer. Something like the Arms and Armor Black Prince, which just screams "late 14th-century" to me.

Is this a reasonable choice for my impression, or would such a weapon simply not find it's way into the hands of an archer, even if a well-equipped one?

I also have my eye on A&A's "French Medieval sword."

As an archer, you are a professional soldier, and should have good kit.

I'm not too sure on the detail for C14th archers ... precisely when in the C14th anyway ? ... so this is going to be fairly C15th biased ... so take in 'under advisement' ... however if you are aiming to represent an archer with a degree of status (which would require a Lord of appropriate higher status) then I'd agree that a basic sword (or falchion) and buckler would be appropriate. However as an archer you'd also be expected to have a means of putting your stakes into the ground, hence the frequent (well relatively) reference to lead mauls which could serve the dual purpose of mallet and weapon.
If you do go for the sword then a simple single handed sword would seem most appropriate.

Strongbow specified that his character was "A fairly well-off household archer", which is why I said he'd be a professional soldier.

I wasn't suggesting that all archers would be professionals, but I'd certainly expect a household archer to be.

Neil has it right I think. My persona will be an archer in the employ of some great lord. He would serve as garrison for his holdings or serve him directly in the field. As I understnad it, such men tended to be well equipped: decent armor, quality weapons, well provisioned. Most would have been mounted on the march.

Going by contemporary illustrations, it seems a sword and buckler combination would be a good pick for this impression. It seems very likely to me that a household archer would have been trained in the use of sword and buckler not only for self defense in the field, but to increase his utility as an escort/bodyuard to his lord. Although from much later, I understand the Archers under Warwick at Calais often took duty as night patrols armed with hand weapons. Likewise, I understand some archers in Burgundian service took guard duty with hand weapons.

My brain says a simple single handed arming sword ala the "French Medieval Sword" or some flavor of Falcion (like the MRL "wakefield") would be most likely, but it brings up the question at the heart of the matter: What access did non-noble soldiery have to the "latest and greatest" of military technology. I guess my question is did the knightly classes and the professional soldiering classes use similar swords? And if they were different, how so?

No offence taken!

--------------------

Please don't take this wrong, but you sound over-equipped for your social status.

As far as I understand it, a sword is going to be a high-status weapon in your period, and I'd doubt you'd have more than a spear and long knife - even most professional warriors don't seem to have one in most period illustrations.

It might be worth thinking about either increasing your social status - if the rest of your kit can match it - or downgrading your weaponry to match it.

--------------------

"Actually, Skilled archers and scouts were such a valuable commodity to most nobles armies, that Theghns would equip them handsomely to aquire their services."

What's your evidence for this in the Anglo-saxon period?

I'm very definitely not an expert on that period, but I can't think of many sources for archers being considered an important component of anglo-saxon forces, let alone highly-regarded or especially well-rewarded.

This doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there, simply that I'm not aware of it and interested to know what it is.

As for picking up the sword of a dead viking, fair enough, anybody can get lucky.

--------------------

The whole point is that I AM thinking outside the context of 13-14th century archers - C13th archers are seen as a valid, useful tactical component of the army, and paid accordingly, as professional soldiers.

They are also much more likely to have access to swords, which are much cheaper, relative to income, in the later period.

My problem is that as far as I'm aware, the anglo-saxons show no particular signs of regarding the bow as an important or useful weapon. If anything, they seem to have positively ignored it.

Think of all the saxon sources, and how often bows aren't mentioned, even when having them would have been very useful - it's the people in the sheildwall who seem to be valued, not archers.

If the account of stamford bridge you've seen is the heimskringlasaga (which is the only one I'm aware of that includes lots of archers), it's actually C13th, and reflects that period rather than the actual battle itself - it also has the anglo-saxons charging home as cavalry.

I think the original question still stands - what period sources do we have that suggest saxon archers being especially valued or well paid?

Come to think of it, what original period sources do we have for them being used as snipers in the way that you are envisaging?

I suspect Neil is right. Swords in early medieval periods are quite expensive.

--------------------

--------------------

a) A royal huntsman may indeed be a person of some status, but according to your earlier post, you aren't one. You are a huntsman's apprentice, and I'm not sure that apprentices pick up that much of the status of their master's trade until they are fully qualified. Until then, you're just an apprentice, and have about the status of a YTS trainee.

If you want to be a royal huntsman and walk around with a sword, go for it, but I'm still dubious you can justify it as his apprentice.

b) Regarding evidence for status of archers - your position appears to be that you've seen loads of evidence that proves you right, but can't be assed to actually show any of it to anyone else. If that is your position, fair enough, but forgive me if I regard it with a certain amount of scepticism.

--------------------

Glad you didn't take offence.