Throwing hawks or knives in combat?

[Elnathan]

There is a huge anthropological error made in assuming every single human culture had a systematic hand-to-hand combat system, let alone schools of martial arts. While there very well were HTH combat techniques probably passed from father to son, these would fall short of being a martial art. One needs more than the presence of "warriors" to foster a martial art.

LD

Heh. I had a long, long argument over this very point regarding the American Indians many years ago. My theory then, which has not significantly changed, is that while there might have been true martial arts among the Indians prior to Columbus, by the time of the American Revolution they had disappeared due to the disruption of tribal life and the increasing importance of firearms in warfare.

I have been looking for many years but have yet to run across a reference to systematic training in hand-to-hand combat in either Indian or white frontiersmen - some mention of practicing with a tomahawk, but nothing to indicate that there was a system of use beyond a few basic blows. I think that there might have been prior to 1700, but not afterwards.

This is not too surprising if one considers that both societies were composed of men who were hunters and farmers first and foremost, without a true warrior caste with the free time to develop, practice, and transmit such skills, and that such skills were probably not necessary in an age when most fights were decided with gunfire.

 

[Coot]

I recall several naval references to crewmen on warships, that when handed a cutlass, "could do nothing more than swing at the head of an opponent" or words to that effect. It would seem that some the best fighters picked up their skills in bar room brawls rather than thru any formalized training.

 

[Artificer]

We have to be careful of generalities when talking about fighting skills.

I don't doubt the average English or American Sailor when handed a cutlass did not know how to use one, even in the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy Sailors were usually "recruited" by Press Gangs from those who had no training in any martial arts beyond some use of a knife or cudgel in bar room or back alley brawls/escapades.

The average Colonist in the 18th century often/usually had no fighting skills and that fact became painfully apparent at many Militia Musters, let alone in the wars of the 18th century up to and including the AWI.

One really has to be careful when making generalities on Native Americans as some tribes were extremely warlike down to some tribes that were either very peaceful OR had been subjugated for so long, they dared not study warfare, lest it bring the wrath down on them from more warlike tribes. For example, during the 18th century, the Lenni Lenape/Delaware even had to get permission from their Iroquois masters for trading and land deals with European Settlers. If it had become known to their Iroquois masters that they were studying warfare techniques, they would have been crushed and/or some smaller groups/tribes annihilated.

Further, because most tribes had no written language, of course training methods came down in the Oral/In Person tradition. So naturally you won't find written evidence of it, as they kept those things very close in the tribes.

Some clues come down to us by the fact that even well after firearms were introduced, some tribes were still using wood ball shaped War Clubs and "gun stock" shaped War Clubs. Of course those would not be very useful if they did not have some training in them. They transferred those skills to the Metal Tomahawks as they got them from the Colonists.

In later periods than the 18th century, many tribes out west were known as "the finest light cavalry in the world" and after they got firearms, they were extremely hard for the Whites to subjugate. Those tribes adapted their warlike skills to use with firearms and they were usually better at fighting than U.S. Soldiers. It was only the fact there were so many more U.S. Soldiers that the tribes were eventually subjugated.

I agree it is very difficult to find evidence of the warfighting training in the tribes and especially if one is not of that tribe or recognized by the at least some in the tribe/s.

More on this coming in my next post.

Gus

 

[Elnathan]

I find the fact that neither James Smith, John Turner, nor Jonathan Alder mention training in a martial art, something that would have been a constant activity had one existed, to be significant. The latter two actually participated in war parties, too.

Written language or no, I'd expect some reference to a "Savauge salle" or something of a like kidney, if there was a true martial art out there. It isn't like we don't have a bunch of accounts of Indian life...

 

[Artificer]

Have you ever read of a "Helper" or a "Pipe Holder" in war like contexts?

Gus

Edited to say: Sorry, I should have written in Native American war like contexts.

 

[Artificer]

I recall several naval references to crewmen on warships, that when handed a cutlass, "could do nothing more than swing at the head of an opponent" or words to that effect. It would seem that some the best fighters picked up their skills in bar room brawls rather than thru any formalized training.

Something else about the general use of swords in the 18th century in Britain, swords were still way too expensive for many/most people to own and training in the sword was pretty much confined to the upper class for dueling purposes, with some exception in Scotland.

Since the various Highland Clans were often involved with raiding or cattle stealing from other clans, many Clan Chieftains or Sub-Chieftains retained fighting men who they outfitted with swords and they provided training in the basket hilt sword. This does not mean that all or most Scots were trained in the sword, but a larger percentage were trained there with the sword and especially in lower economic classes.

Even after Culloden, there were enough men trained in the use of the Basket Hilt Broadsword/Backsword that they used them here in the FIW.

However, thanks to the Proscription/Disarming Acts after Culloden, the next generation of Scots were not trained in the use of the sword as young men as earlier generations had been trained. So when they came over here in the AWI, their issued Basket Hilt Backswords were put into storage not long after they got here and rarely, if ever used them.

Gus

 

[Elnathan]

Have you ever read of a "Helper" or a "Pipe Holder" in war like contexts?

Gus

Edited to say: Sorry, I should have written in Native American war like contexts.

Nope. Not sure why that would be significant, either.

We aren't arguing over whether or not the Indians were warlike. We are arguing about whether they had a systematic method of using weapons analogous to the martial arts of Medieval and Renaissance Europe, China, and Japan.

In addition to the reasons I mentioned above, I'll also note that intertribal warfare as practiced by the American Indians doesn't really demand a martial art. In the Eastern Woodlands prior to 1700, when the Iroquois were storming Algonquian forts, I suspect that still retained any ancient skills in hand-to-hand combat. After that time in the East and pretty much any time out West, warfare mostly consisted of shooting at each other at long range, mostly without effect prior to firearms, or ambushes at close range (often women and children). This doesn't require a martial art, which is sort of built around the idea that battle is going to be decided by two or men duking it out at close quarters, to be an effective way or war. (Unless we are considering archery to be a martial art. I think that is a justifiable use of the term, but isn't really what I'm talking about in this discussion).

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Amongst Native Americans, perhaps during the short period between the beginning of the use of horses and the advent of their access to firearms, riding and archery became important arts primarily for hunting buffalo, but also to a lesser extent for intertribal conflict.

Some believe that even archery was acquired from the first European contact with whatever Norse settled here so briefly.

The concept of pre-contact natives having only clubs, stones and atlatls for fighting would leave too much to speculation.

 

[Artificer]

Unless I mistake your meaning and I could be, are you suggesting that because there was not a formal NA "martial art school" of some sort, that NA's did not train their young warriors in hand to hand fighting with Ball Clubs, Gunstock Clubs and Tomahawks as they became available?

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

One really has to be careful when making generalities on Native Americans as some tribes were extremely warlike...,

Further, because most tribes had no written language, of course training methods came down in the Oral/In Person tradition. So naturally you won't find written evidence of it, as they kept those things very close in the tribes.

Some clues come down to us by the fact that even well after firearms were introduced, some tribes were still using wood ball shaped War Clubs and "gun stock" shaped War Clubs. Of course those would not be very useful if they did not have some training in them. They transferred those skills to the Metal Tomahawks as they got them from the Colonists.

In later periods than the 18th century, many tribes out west were known as "the finest light cavalry in the world" and after they got firearms, ...,

While of the above is true, it does not automatically rise to the level of HTH Martial Art. Which is the error I previously mentioned, and "warlike" is not necessarily = to having a "martial art".

Martial techniques, YES, codified HTH martial art, with a teacher creating a "style" or "school", no. To do that, the human cultures (with or without writing) that are documented as having such, had a dedicated, full time group of soldiers, as opposed to warriors, with "soldier" being a warrior who is either fighting or training to fight, full time. This requires two very basic, very necessary factors to begin. First, you need sufficient population and food production to allow full time soldiers to exist while others are dedicated to food production. Second, you need to have warfare conducted where there are sufficiently large encounters where HTH combat is the norm.

In the Eastern woodlands at contact..., you have large enough populations to support full time soldiers and enough food, BUT the culture doesn't show this. Further their mode of warfare is based on stealth, the ambush, having an overwhelming advantage on the enemy when launching the attack. So while they would have had HTH weapon techniques..., that does not necessarily lead to an HTH martial art. Not to mention the egalitarian societies that existed in Eastern Woodland cultures are counter productive to a martial art creation...i.e. they have no "king". The Mound Builders of Missouri? Well who can say, but if there was an Indian HTH martial art in the Eastern Woodland, that would most likely be the group to have had it, since the organization needed to build the mounds would be the same needed to have dedicated soldiers.

Western plains, YES expert riders and bowmen, so riding and archery martial art experts, but that's not HTH. AND THAT was their principal method of warfare from horseback with Bow, and with lance, coupled with less lethal "counting coup" by touching with a stick. Not to mention that again, the warriors were not full time in that occupation, needing to hunt and not even being highly concentrated through the year, plus their culture again, was not conducive to having soldiers.

Aztecs? YES, large population, full time warriors, specialized weapons (restricted to the warrior/soldier class) and royalty to order redistribution of food so that full time soldiers would be available, AND could be conscripted. Farther South, Mayans and Incas in the past, them too. :wink:

This is mirrored all over the world.
The Zulu rise to power by dedicating men to be full time warriors who are then trained into soldiers, and completely changed their fighting from spears at a distance, into an HTH style previously unknown to their neighbors.... with devastating effect, :shocked2:

The Bushi of Japan, who then became full time warriors called Samurai and numerous different schools of martial arts, right down to the oral histories later set down in books of the name of the dude who collected and systemized the techniques, :wink:

Shaolin Monks in China, born from traditional fighting methods in India, and in both places, large populations with authoritarian governments that lead to people with enough time to form actual HTH martial arts, but the average soldier with more basic martial techniques, is not a match for them.

The Hawaiians with a full fledged overall king, and their Southern cousins, the Maori, same basic culture, large population with a king, and dedicated soldiers needing HTH and martial arts are born (note the Polynesians are spread over a wide area of the South Pacific. The tech between them is the same, same language group, but on many of the lesser islands, small population and mere subsistence food production = no HTH martial art.) Some say Limalama is a pure invention of the 20th century, so you have an example in Hawaii of all the necessary factors yet no automatic creation of a martial art vs. the Maori with Mau Rakau. Others say the Hawaiians have a traditional art, that birthed Limalama in the 1950's.

LD

Wow we sure got afield from chucking 'hawks at an enemy, eh?

 

[Artificer]

Dave,

We seem to be stuck on formal martial arts or full time soldiers.

There never had to be a formal/codified martial art for people to be trained to use the hand weapons of their time.

For example, Vikings were not full time soldiers and had no martial art school, but they were trained to use the hand axe very well by older warriors.

Gus

 

[Elnathan]

Unless I mistake your meaning and I could be, are you suggesting that because there was not a formal NA "martial art school" of some sort, that NA's did not train their young warriors in hand to hand fighting with Ball Clubs, Gunstock Clubs and Tomahawks as they became available?

Gus

I am defining "martial art' in this conversation as a systematic combat technique that transcends which weapon you might have in your hand at the time. Medieval European dagger fighting is essentially armed wrestling - the basic principles of leverage and positioning are the same in both types of fighting. In Late medieval German swordfighting the basic principle of leverage and positioning are the same whether fighting with a single-hand messer or a two-handed longsword. The grand example of this might be the Elizabethan Englishman George Silver, who wrote two works essentially reducing all combat down to "time" and "distance," which principles defined everything from dagger fighting to polearms.

This is a distinct step above learning a collection of basic blows and a couple isolated techniques - "If he grapples with you, you can hook the inside of his knee with your tomahawk," "If he tries stapping you with a knife like so, you can block it and then immediately cut back like so." That can be taught by one's grandad. I don't think a culture can develop or retain a true HTH martial art as defined above, though, unless there a more organized way of transmitting information.

Are you familiar with Jackie Chan, the Chinese/Hong Kong actor? He was placed in a boarding school as a small child (an orphan, I think)whose sole purpose was to teach him martial arts. And teach him they did - he learned dozens of different styles. He also got into street fights as a teenager. IIRC, he writes in his autobiography that he used absolutely none of the meticulously learned, elaborate moves from school in these fights - instead, the fights ended up being a few basic blows delivered hard and fast followed a few seconds later by running away with someone's tooth stuck in his knuckle. Even allowing that the "martial arts" he learned in school were a whole lot further removed from combat reality than those I mentioned above, I think that should be a reminder that the usefulness of true martial arts can be overstated. In a one-on-one duel with a trained opponent, very useful. In a bareknuckle brawl, or for closing on a dazed enemy, good reflexes, aggression, and mastery of a few basic blows is more than sufficient to make you a dangerous opponent.

It is also something that can be transmitted and retained without constant practice, allowing one to spend your days doing useful things like providing for your family.

I do think that it is likely that prior to Columbus, the Eastern Woodlands people probably had something approaching a true martial art, and I know of some limited evidence that it might have survived as late as 1700. Pre-Historic Era Woodlands culture probably had the social stratification and organized mass warfare necessary to develop one, at least in certain areas. The dramatic loss of population, the changes in warfare that saw the disappearance of stuff like forts and armor from Native warfare, (yeah, they had fortifications, wooden armor, and large shields at one point), and the introduction of firearms could have easily led to a loss of these skills, though. As you yourself have pointed out, the whites themselves had swords but little good training for many of their fighting men, so why should we assume that the Indians were any different?

I don't think that not having a true martial art meant that Indians weren't dangerous opponents. I do think that it means that 1) hand-to-hand combat wasn't the priority we think that it should have been (both white frontiermen and Indians often seem to have preferred to reload and shoot their guns even at very close range - quite normal human behavior per Col. Grossman* but something that doesn't fit well with the idea of warriors thoroughly indoctrinated in the techniques of hand-to-hand combat) and 2) trying to reconstruct a Native martial art is probably a wild-goose chase.

The Vikings had a stratified class system with a caste of full-time warriors, BTW. They aren't really analogous to 18th and 19th century American Indians.

* If you are wondering who Colonel Grossman is, he is the author of On Killing and the guy that came up with the Sheep-Wolf-Sheepdog analogy of human society so beloved of current military and law enforcement personnel. I strongly disagree with a lot of his theories as to why people behave in combat but his description of how seems quite accurate in my limited observation.

 

[Black Hand]

Are you familiar with Jackie Chan, the Chinese/Hong Kong actor? He was placed in a boarding school as a small child (an orphan, I think)whose sole purpose was to teach him martial arts. And teach him they did - he learned dozens of different styles. He also got into street fights as a teenager. IIRC, he writes in his autobiography that he used absolutely none of the meticulously learned, elaborate moves from school in these fights - instead, the fights ended up being a few basic blows delivered hard and fast followed a few seconds later by running away with someone's tooth stuck in his knuckle. Even allowing that the "martial arts" he learned in school were a whole lot further removed from combat reality than those I mentioned above, I think that should be a reminder that the usefulness of true martial arts can be overstated. In a one-on-one duel with a trained opponent, very useful. In a bareknuckle brawl, or for closing on a dazed enemy, good reflexes, aggression, and mastery of a few basic blows is more than sufficient to make you a dangerous opponent.

It is also something that can be transmitted and retained without constant practice, allowing one to spend your days doing useful things like providing for your family.

Your comments are right on point (in my opinion).

Having studied in 2 different schools of Martial Arts (both Karate), one focused on the mastery of basic techniques to be used as needed while the other had a formalized set of moves (literally hundreds of combinations) to be used as defense/offense to a particular attack. In the first, I felt as if I could manage - while in the second, I was overwhelmed with just trying to remember what came next in the sequence (oftentimes with little success). When it came to sparring, both were equally useful even though they did differ somewhat in the basics. If ever the need arises to use what one has learned; simple, hard and accurate attacks/defenses (from either style) would go further, as would the ability to take a blow without shutting down from the shock (which I believe gets those who have never been on the receiving end...).

 

[Artificer]

OK, then by your definition of a systemized martial art, I agree that NA’s did not have that, but I never mentioned nor suggested they had that kind of a systemized martial art in the 18th century.

“As you yourself have pointed out, the whites themselves had swords but little good training for many of their fighting men, so why should we assume that the Indians were any different?”

The Highland Scots lost their knowledge of swords because they were subjugated to the degree that any tiny infraction against the Proscription Acts got them hung, jailed or forced colonization ”“ this included something as minor as showing even a bit of Tartan Cloth; IOW they could no longer train their young men as it not only wasn’t their choice, it was no longer possible. Now this happened to some tribes like the subjugated Lenni Lenape, but the war like NA tribes retained training their young warriors.

There is no doubt that when tribes got firearms, that some previous fighting skills faded to some degree, just as it did in every civilization once they got firearms. I don’t doubt that there are examples of NA’s who chose to reload rather than close with hand weapons against firearm armed opponents. The enemies firearms would negate most any hand to hand training opposing tribes had. Many of even the highest trained people in real Martial Arts today say it is crazy to go up against a firearm, unless you have no other choice.

Your reference to the Vikings having a caste of full time soldiers is true of the later period after they had conquered so much territory. It was not that way in the beginning and early period. Yes, in the early period some nobles could afford Men at Arms, but they were not large bodies of full time soldiers until the later years when they could afford them after conquering so much territory and controlling so much trade. I am of course referring to the early period when I mentioned older men teaching younger men how to wield the hand axe so effectively.

Actually the early Viking raids were pretty similar to NA raids against other NA tribes, except of course the woodlands NA’s had dropped the use of shields. The main technique of the hand axe was very similar to the tomahawk in that you constantly kept the tomahawk moving except to block or strike and then you quickly got it moving again.

Actually your reference to Jackie Chan and I might add Bruce Lee goes to the point there does not have to be a formal Martial Art for people to be trained to be good at hand to hand combat, but there does have to be some training as just toting a tomahawk is not enough.

Though of course there were things in NA tribes that Grandfathers taught, the training of young warriors was not done by them. Matter of fact with some exceptions when a father was a fine warrior, most sons were also not trained in war fare by their fathers. Fathers would train their sons in woods craft, hunting and the use of the bow up to their early/mid teens. Then in most war like tribes, the sons were trained by a recognized warrior in his twenties. In the Sauk/Fox tradition, this warrior was called a "Helper." The Cherokee, Lakota, and other tribes had a different name for these warriors who taught the lads, but he/they did the same job. The idea was that many teenagers would not listen/learn as well from their fathers as from another warrior. In essence, these "Helper" Warriors were very similar to Drill Instructors in the Marine Corps and Drill Sergeants in the Army. These slightly older "Helpers" taught warfare to the young warriors and that included hand to hand and other tactics.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oops, didn't realize I had cut some of my post off in the copy/paste, so here is the rest:

OH, and yes, I have heard of Colonel Grossman, matter of fact quite some time ago. As a Career Warrior myself, I very much agree with his thoughts on Sheep, Wolves and Sheep Dogs and long before I ever heard of the Colonel. I volunteered for the Marine Corps long before he was well known and before he began his Career in the Army. The draft was still going on in my Senior Year of High School and of course the Viet Nam War was still going on. Since I figured I would otherwise be drafted, I chose the Marine Corps because I believed I would get the best training and serve with more Warriors who volunteered to be there. Colonel Grossman speaks to the hearts of most Career Warriors.

Gus

 

[csitas]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is, When locked in hand to hand mortal combat I truly believe if you want to survive, you will find a way. Training or not. Training is nice but, I don't see proof that is required.

 

[Elnathan]

Gus,

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but even at the beginning of the Viking age the Norse had the basic slave, freeman, noble distinction (Thrall, Karl, and Jarl in the poem "Rigsthula), and the military was based around the nobles and their household troops/warband/huskarlr. That was the standard organization of pretty much every Germanic people-group since Tacitus (and, as an aside, it was when the noble warbands replaced migrating farmers as Rome's primary opponents that the "barbarians" became a match for the legions.) The early viking raids were probably (no one knows for sure) triggered by changes in the royal dynasty of Denmark, which led nobles out of favor with the new regime to seek alternate sources of revenue (Germanic kingship and power structures centered around the distribution of wealth to underlings) and would have been comprised of nobles or at least landowners and their private warbands. So, not just farmers with axes.

Your description of a "helper" is interesting, and I'd be curious to know where you got that information. The caveat is that most nations were matrilineal and in at least some boys were raised by their maternal uncles, not their fathers, as a matter of course. So I have to wonder if the "helper" isn't a garbled reference to this practice. It does make sense to get instruction in area from someone recognized as skilled in the matter, though.

Yeah, after a lot of reflection I've come to the conclusion that Grossman's "sheepdog" analogy should be taken off somewhere and quietly put down. It sounds good good at first, but if I understand his basic premise re: human nature correctly he is essentially called military and police psychopaths for good - rather insulting I think - and it also encourages law enforcement and military to think of themselves as special and apart from the mass of citizens, which is a dangerous development in a Republic that hopes to remain free. That is a different conversation, though.

Edited to add: I have been using a very narrowly defined definition of "martial art" here because the phrase has a lot of cultural baggage and I didn't want to get bogged down arguing over semantics. I do think that in other contexts the phrase can be used more broadly, but here it is helpful to be very precise to avoid misunderstanding.

 

[Artificer]

Yes, I understand about the Noble/Freeholder/Slave societal structure of the early Vikings, but the fact remains in the early Viking years that most of the raiders were not noblemen's men at arms, but rather freeholders who joined the expeditions either at the Noblemen's direct calling or because they wanted various kinds of plunder.

The term "Helper" for a warrior in his twenties who taught lads to be a warrior is a Sauk/Fox term, as mentioned before. I ran across it sort of by accident while trying to find out as much about learning to be a warrior as I could after enlisting in the Delayed Entry Program in the Marines before I graduated High School. I read everything I could find and talked to as many veterans as I could and the few veterans who would talk to me about going into combat. Of course, many WWII Vets did not want to talk about their war time experiences, even though it sure looked like I would be in a shooting war.

However, one WWII Veteran opened up after I mentioned I had Sauk/Fox ancestry, though not enough to be considered a member of the nation. That Veteran was a member of the nation and informed me about "Helpers" and other things that I would otherwise have not been able to learn about.

That summer before I began active duty in October, we went on an annual family vacation and this time out west. I ran across a couple of NA's in South Dakota at the Crazy Horse Memorial, who had blankets on and had the Marine Corps Emblem on the blankets. That is how I first learned of the Code Talkers, as one of them had been one. He informed me it was unusual for a white to respectfully ask about NA warriors, but after learning I was going into the Marine Corps and had some Sauk/Fox heritage and had learned something about Helpers, he explained it was their tradition to do the same thing. In Arizona, I ran across more NA's who had been Code Talkers and Marine Corps Veterans. I spent my second to last week before going in the Corps in Denver, CO visiting my Brother and his wife. I ran across more NA's there and some talked to me about their Warrior Traditions.

While in the Corps, I made a point of talking to NA's of various nations, both on active duty and in the local areas at different duty stations around the country.

More than once I was informed they would not have talked to me about their warrior traditions with me being "white," had I not been going into the Marine Corps or later was a Marine and a little because I had found out something about the Sauk/Fox traditions. Now of course there were things they would not talk to me about because I was not of their tribe, but being part of the "Marine Corps Nation" made me a Brother to many of them and I got information I otherwise would not have gotten.

I had also studied Judo under a second generation Japanese Instructor who was VERY Old School, beginning when I was about 11. In his Dojo, and even when going every week for the 3 to 4 hour sessions, it took almost two years just to get a Yellow Belt. I think part of the philosophy and deportment I learned there, also aided me in getting information from NA's. I KNOW it aided me when I was invited to go to an ancient Karate Dojo in Naha, Okinawa that only two other "Round Eyes" had ever been allowed to study at.

My knowledge of "Pipe Holders" helped me get a Meritorious Promotion to Sergeant while I was still 19 years old, though one Major on that Promotion Board was a "Canoe U Ring Knocker" and did not like it very much when I explained my views on becoming an Officer.

Though of course you have the right to your opinion, I'm sorry you feel that way about Colonel Grossman and his explanations on being a Warrior.

Gus

 

[Elnathan]

Thanks Gus. I was kind of afraid that it would be oral tradition. I've run across enough "traditional beliefs" that, when checked against written period sources, turn out to be not traditional* to be a bit leery of accepting tribal wisdom as as fact. OTOH, I can't think of a reason to doubt this one and it is a useful lead to try to run down. If it was present among the SE nations during the 18th century Adair is sure to mention it...

*Big one: American Bull's "winter count" from the 1880s claims that the Sioux settled in the Black Hills in 1776, even naming the discoverer. Not only a written period source but written by the Sioux themselves! And, yet, they now claim that they have lived there since time immemorial....

 

[Elnathan]

Yes, I understand about the Noble/Freeholder/Slave societal structure of the early Vikings, but the fact remains in the early Viking years that most of the raiders were not noblemen's men at arms, but rather freeholders who joined the expeditions either at the Noblemen's direct calling or because they wanted various kinds of plunder.

Being rather familiar with the sources available I will observe that there is no possible way for anyone to know that, and leave it at that.