How were Medieval Armies & Soldiers Recruited?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Medieval soldiers were recruited for armies in various ways. Matt Easton explains!
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#medieval #soldiers #recruitment
1. Go to the Village Elder
2. Ask if there's any Volunteers
3. Pay 40 Denars for 4 Swadian Recruits
4. Profit(?)
F1 f3
IT'S ALMOST HARVESTING SEASON
Then them rhodoks exterminate your recruits with their pikes and crossbows
Fun fact: In the Italian Wars there was an oversupply of cavalry and heavy armored troops because those roles offered the most money. However, there weren't enough combat engineers because that required vocational skills and was extremely dangerous.
Successful military engineers were very well paid. Leonardo da Vinci only became a painter because he was unable to make it as an engineer. The education necessary wasn’t freely available and engineering families did not readily ‘share’ their know how with others.
@@charlesbruggmann7909 Then again the sappers and labourers definitely did not have the most glamourous of jobs.. That said these people deserve tons of respect in my opinion especially in later periods. Sappers in Napoleons army for example were some of the toughest men you can imagine. They still carried muskets into battle but had to be tough to perform their laborious activities, often under fire and they carried tons of equipment on top of the musket and ammo. Sometimes they even wore elements of plate because it could offer some protection from stray musket shots or shrapnel. Particularly in sieges where they might be handling explosives themselves. You can imagine protecting yourself from splinters, rocks, and other frag might be worth the extra hassle of wearing a helmet and a breastplate.
Sappers and especially high ranking engineers were paid pretty well though as you say (laborers in the medieval period less so.. Sometimes they were literally slaves depending on the culture using them.)
No medieval polytechnic universities/engineering universities/..., no combat engineers! Only self-taught geniuses, and their apprentices!
@@charlesbruggmann7909pretty sure that he stopped designing weapons because the people that ended up using them turned out to be murderous psychopaths who could never make the next Rome.
@rzxyz-c4h you don't need a school to learn that stuff. Most people got hired as apprentices and get promoted to partner
The French mercilessly taunted the English from atop the battlements. And launched the occasional cow via catapult.
What are the doing in England???
@@totallynotalpharius2283 We are here to taunt you silly English ki-ni-gits.
I wonder if there was a requirement in artillery corps for a professional cow loader.
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smell of elderberries".😂😂
This takes me back to AD&D and basic D&D. I remember looking at the cost of keeping retainers and couldn't figure out how the hell a baron or knight could afford to keep a standing army of 10 or more.
You know you have them when the PCs go on adventures to pay for their fief. 😄
Haha, that's a good point! My personal rule of thumb is what I call the 'general militarization rate', or what % of a population would be in some active military service (however that duty might manifest).
From my personal (layman) research I noticed that similar types of societies (agricultural, pastoral, nomadic, industrial, what-have-you) tend to converge on similar % numbers, that then tend to fluctuate a bit higher/lower depending on the active or ambient threat levels.
For example, sedetary agrictultural societies tend to converge on ~0.5% of the population in active military duty, be it ancient Rome or modern states. As I mentioned earlier this % will go up or down depending on the threat level factors. (And then there's the ability of modern industrialized societies to muster obscene resources towards a war effort, but I digress)
From that point, I apply factors like the centralization of military authority (e.g. the king ought to have the lion's share) or sub-groups following different rules (e.g. towns/cities from which a feudal lord wouldn't be mustering either way). I have these numbers less studied, but I would assign about 1/2 of the military authority to the king and assume a ~10% urbanization rate.
Thus, a lord with his demense having a decent population of 50k would in (semi-)peace time have a standing troop count of ((50k * 0.9) / 2) * 0.005 = 112 dudes.
How do you factor in castle or town garrisons, a police force (or equivalent), or having less full-duty hands and more dedicated reservists is up to you.
Cheers
Loot a dragon's hoard 😮 😅
Paying to equip them added up, too.
@@sitrilko could you share where you got your numbers from? I've always wanted to quantitatively model these sorts of institutional stuff
I've also always awed at how professional and skilled "Western" medieval fighters were compared to their Byzantine, Saracen, etc counterparts despite numerical disadvantages - Barbarossa's lopsided victories at the start of the 3rd Crusade are a joy to behold
@8:45 One of the reasons the French employed the Genoese crossbows so much was because that basically got France both professional archers, and a navy contingent; for a country with no professional navy to rely on such as France, the value of such a combination against England is rather obvious.
Well, that and the fact that prior to Henry of Navarre, native French infantry forces in general were not held in very high regard.
If the French used them correctly, they would be a more than equal match for the English archers. The French won(Hundred Years' War) thanks to cannons(french guns vs. english bowmens) and attrition tactics(cavalry hit and run tactics).
For example, in Japan/China, commanders had military advisors, they wouldn't send crossbowmen(without pavise/war door) against archers there!
Fan fact, everyone says that samurai didn't use shields, but the truth is that they used war doors.
@@rzxyz-c4h French "Francs" archers and archers of the ordonnance (mainly longbowmen) were pretty instrumental in later 100-years war battles, actually. Only, French authors don't want to give the "rabble" any credit for the victories, and English authors are loathe to admit that anybody else ever raised longbowmen who were ever effective.
@@joshuafair5599 but the French adapted, deployed cannons against the archers and forced the English to attack and employ hit-and-run tactics using cavalry was the key!
I ran into some fascinating Commissions of Array from Richard II that he issued during the panic when the French were about to invade circa 1386. They're basically orders to the Commission holders to go get troops and "archers of the better sort" to man various forts. But there are no specific instructions on the muster process, unfortunately.
These small incremental pieces of data that we unfortunately don't have are the things that keep me searching, personally :D
The reason for a lack of specific instructions on how to recruit the levy was because there weren't any.
If would have been an organic and county specific process.
From the small snippets we have, it seems to be an organic growth out of the Saxon Fryd.
In Saxon times, villages were grouped into "hundreds".
When an Elderman or King called for the levy, each hundred, under their elders, would sent roughly 10 young men armed collectively by the hundred (it seems that though they were called "Hundreds" it was a geographical designation containing 200-300of household over multiple villages).
Of course, within that many households, some would be richer than others and have contained households who would be rich enough to not have to farm but pursue service for the nobility.
These would have been Huscarls and leaders of the Fryd and the unofficial officers of the Frydmen raised.
So a Commission of the Array seems have grown out of this system (and knights out of the middle class yeoman-landowners rich enough not to work it themselves but hire full time workers).
So they would have gone to well defined, traditional grouping of villages and demand a certain number of archers/spearmen.
There is more, for example *feudal obligation.* We saw this at Verneuil in 1424. There is also *criminals* serving without receiving the king’s pay to get a pardon - ‘a ses custages propres’. The person in question would have to hand over a fee for the issue of his charter of pardon - 16s 4d. When Edward III lay siege to Calais in 1346, somewhere around 10% were men recruited in this way. There is also *distraint.* Those who had £40 or more per year had to take up knighthood, but if they didn't they could pay the fine by military service owned to the king instead. This practice was abolished by Edward III in 1352. There is also *voluntary service.* Many nobles saw it as beneath them to receive money for service. During Edward I and Edward II reign as many as half the men-at-arms did not serve for money after 40 days. 40 days was their feudal obligation. This went out of use in 1337.
The spoils of war were their wages, and the motivation to become a mercenary/professional soldier was a bonus!
Definitely an interesting topic. I like the term Feemen as it clearly demonstrates that the people at the time distinguished them by the fact that they were paid for full time military service.
In Scotland, the lords and clan chiefs told those who lived on the lord's land that certain number of tenants had to fight in the army (or war band). Those who refused this obligation were evicted or had their cattle seized and their roofs set on fire.
There is this famous missive of Ferdinand II of Aragon to a town in what is now northern Spain, requesting "300 armed men trained and equipped in the manner of the Swiss". That seems to be awfully specific for the described forms of recruitment.
Is like what employers write down as requirements on entry level job ads nowadays
What did he get
Beard looking good
As a beard aficionado, beards always look good.
I love the way you structure these overview videos. Unlike some other channels, I always know what terminology to use if I want to dive deeper on a specific area covered. You have a knack for simplifying the subjects enough for this format while also keeping the key terms well-defined.
Helps that he is a historian by training.
I’ve been loving these historical discussions about who were the soldiers in these battles.
Your videos on weapons are great. But I'm thrilled you are branding out to more details of society, mercenaries, armies, how they did..., and battles. Also, add castles: construction, sieges, history.
I am curious at how soldiers - indentured, levied or whatever - were seen by their communities. Was it an honour to fight for their lord? Was it something people tried to dodge? Were they celebrated or was it such a common thing people didn't bat an eye?
At least in later periods local communities often used the levy as a means to get rid of unwanted elements, like troublemakers, beggars, sickly individuals, etc. Capable hands were very valuable in a medieval community, and no one wanted to waste the best and most able-bodied men in some lord's war. Of course, those lords would have greatly preferred to have the best men available and this led to conflicts.
It probably varied based on time and place, what was the ecconomic situation? What was their relationship with their lord? What was the perceived relationship to the war they are being called up for? Etc.
Northern villages with a lord they liked would be alot more willing to go into Scotland (due to the cross border raiding) than say southern villages with a lord they don't like.
Depends. Generally those recruited instead of levied were better armed, paid and better motivated. Lords often rarely did conscript their peasants for wars. They rather hire mercenaries.
On the topic of Mercenaries, what were the customs and laws about them passing through territory. I'm sure local or even royal powers were a little suspicious or trepidatious of large bands of well equipped fighters just traipsing across their lands selling their swords. Were there special permissions, or taxes?
Not all mercenaries were unscrupulous pirates. Many were simply adventurers going to wherever the fighting was siding with whoever they thought was right. Others were simply security guards, doing a job and hoping nothing serious happens
Adventurers at killing = unscrupulous mercenary.
Paid guard in someone else's country = unscrupulous mercenary. 😅
@@manfredconnor3194neither of these occupations preclude scruples
would it maybe have some scruples if they had nothing else? If your family died and you were kicked off of your land you had not much choices in employment…
@@operator-chan1887 if you think that, then you have only proven you have none as well.
@@t--w5203 There are always other choices.
I love that he just carries a sword the entire time. Great video!
I really enjoyed the level of detail and continued exploration of these more institutional topics regarding the Wars of the Roses.
Was just looking for an older video of yours on similar that mentions the Close Rolls and what people were supposed to be armed with.
Couldn't find it.
There's the Assize of Arms from 1252, though at that point archers were not as high a priority.
I was just doing research on this! Thanks for the timely vid, Matt!
I've been waiting for this topic. Thank you for a great video.
In cities it was different. Guilds made it a duty for their members to provide their own armor and weapon to defend the city in case of an attack. The city mostly payed a handful of pofessional soldiers who designed or looked after defense dams or walls and organised the troops.
At least in the hre the armor level was dependent on the tax rate. So the higher the payed taxes, the better the equipment. ... Plus tax level was basically in a trust-me basis. Everyone decided themselves how high their income was and thus on how high the taxes are. Which confusingly to modern minds lead to people often paying more taxes than they had too 😂
@@Glimmlampe1982 i dont think so that they decided themselves about their taxes. The land owners and cities had tax experts who looked at the fields for months and took the amount of harvest per acre they came to by their experience. And the city had their own taxation officials. Some times, not too often the taxation and services became too much and you got a peasants riot. Or a big peasant war. In late medieval time or early modern time 1525 there were wide spread fighting with estimated 75000 death mostly peasants but also people from cities and miners fought. There were smaller riots in earlier centuries but this time they came with a paper of 12 demands. they had some meetings to finally agree on the 12 demands and that were: each community to chose their own priest. the 10% tax on grain and cattle to pay the priest, for the poor and war preparations. the small 10% on vegetable, fruit, chicken etc were to be stopped. finish of serfdom. fishing and hunting for all. giving back forests to communities the local lord took away. serves to the lord should be reduced to what the parents had to do. new estimation for the rent a farmer has to pay to the landowner. to judge after old writings not after the momentary opinion of the judges. community land owned by a village taken away by a lord has to be given back. Taxes when somebody died should be stopped not to harass widows and orphans. Abstain of a point when it can be explained with the bible that it is not right. Or add points when the bible says so. The riots were put down, the leaders killed. But also some castles got burned down and lords killed.
Oh, heck, yeah, this is always a burning question.
Him holding that sword the entire time makes it feel like he's threatening my life if I don't listen.
In the 14th century ( I’m not sure about later) English indentured troops sent to France were usually only paid for the first few months, after that their compensation was in the form of looting and extorting the locals. This was fine as long as the English army was winning and looting enemy territory…
These seem to be the vast majority of troops sent to France, especially when the King or Prince of Wales wasn’t the army’s leader.
That's right, the common soldier (amateur/professional) was hungry and without pay! They were paid by loyalty to the lord, prospect of war booty and prospect of noble titles!
so the indenture cutting up the contract paper was like the tally stick where taxes and so where marked on, then broken in two and each party got a part of it.
Minutes in and we are already knee deep in precious Medieval Context, forward brethren!
+][+
This was really interesting. Thanks
Hi Matt, great video. I was thinking, what happened afterwards? What was the place of various soldiers on the battlefield? Were the people "drafted" together by the same lord fighting side by side? Did cavalry comprise only noble men, or did the noble men have around them two, four (or even more) of their mounted subjects? Were the noble's footsoldiers completely separated from their lord during the battle? Who was commanding them? Did it change after the english knights started fighting more on foot than from the horseback? Were the groups of people from neighbouring towns fighting next to one another, or was the battalion structure more random? Was it different for the fench, english, german, etc.? There are many more questions regarding this topic, but I guess you get the gist... Is there any book you could recommend on this topic? I would be especially interested in the battle of Crécy.
Thank you for great content. I am looking forward to your next video!
2:36 It's interesting that in Iberic peninsula there was the "feudo de câmara" (something like 'chamber fief'), in which a lord paid the vassal by depositing coins or high value goods on the vassal's treasure chamber periodically.
Question: warfare throughout the medieval period. If a military campaign wasn't won before the beginning of winter. Was fighting always halted until spring, or were there exeptions? Especially later in the medieval period.
I assume it usually halted because even during the 18th century they were instances were armies would go in to winter quarters and not fight so it must have happened in medieval times
Southern Europe or Middle East winters are not even bad. Plus England winters are pretty mild too. Should keep fighting
While most operations shut down for the winter was some raids
William the conqueror did a winter campaign to quell the northern English lords
Plenty of exceptions, fighting in winter would always be risky, but waging war is in general terribly risky. If some side decided that they could gain an advantage by continuing in winter, they would.
Several battles were fought during winter of 1460/61 during War of the Roses, including, famously Towton, with heavy snow storm despite battle taking place late March.
Famous battle on frozen Peipus Lake took place in April, but since it was around modern Estonian/Russian border and on a frozen lake, temperature had to still be rather low. Earlier developments leading to the battle took place during full winter.
In Eastern Europe fighting during winter was pretty common, since frozen lakes and rivers provide pretty good roads and frozen swamps are passable. First Mongol invasion of Rus' happened during the winter of 1237-38, for example. Famous Battle on the Ice between Novgorod and the Livonian Order happened in early spring of 1242 at the end of a winter campaign. Germans also preferred to invade Lithuania in winter.
Campaigns generally stopped during autumn and spring, when the ground is wet and roads are unpassable.
I have charts for everything from the evolution of swords to general polearms. But I'd love to see you do a extended video talking about and breaking down the different types and classes of polearms and other infantry weapons
He did exactly that a couple of years ago. Look through the back episodes. I'm in the middle of rewatching it.
I recommend Christian Cameron's Chivalry series. Historical fiction during the 100 years war. Very good look at warfare in the middle of the 14th century.
Hi Matt, thanks for the interesting video, very informative. I was wondering if you could do a video in regards to the rank structure of a medieval army. Lords, captains, sergeants and Knight Banneret, Knight Bachelor etc.
I have a rough idea but it would be great if you could research this maybe. Thanks again 👍💡😉
This video is super interesting, and I would honestly listen to an hour long, much deeper dive into the topic if you ended up covering more on it in the future.
I also bought a signed copy of Graham's book. It is genuinely brilliant and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the late medieval period. It's just beautifully produced, illustrated and written.
My personal curiosity is: how were the levied commoners (especially peasants) trained.
There is extremely little information about it.
For example, we know that in England there were laws made to encourage commoners to practice archery - but who trained them?
Their fathers? What if your father hadn't been an archer?
Another male relative with combat skills?
What if there isn't one available nearby?
Other men in the village? If none available, then from a nearby village/town? If so, did they get payed for their training?
What about fighting with polearms? Or swords?
There are hints and tips, here and there, from different locations and time periods.
But, over all, the information available is frustratingly lacking.
Bah, maybe some long forgotten dusty book will be discovered in the bowels of some museum, or monastery, or whatever, and it will give a specific and first-hand account of how were commoners trained in the specific country and time period of the writer. Perhaps even in various countries, if the writer was a traveler.
Sadly, that's not very likely...
That's true, that's why flail and ax were such popular weapons among the Hussites. And the popularity of the crossbow is based on the fact that 1-2 days of training is enough and a crossbowman can go into battle (16th century arquebusier/pikeman).
Graham owes you a commission. Just ordered his book because of you. 🙂👍
You won't regret it - it's very good indeed.
Thanks for another good video ⚔️
TIL: the etymological origin of the word "indenture".. Nice one Matt! :)
Fascinating. Do we know more about the social background of the indentured soldiers? Tenants of a manor would probably serve as livery soldiers right?
There were Irish soldiers in English armies in France. In a French chronicle ( found this in a book on the 100 years war) the Irish are much feared wild long haired barefoot light cavalry. Henry VII also sent ships to Cork to hire soldiers.
I appreciate the beard. I hope you keep growing it out so we can see what you look like with a proper one.
There's something that has to be said about mercenaries: You made it sound as if mercenearies where switching sides every other battle or run the moment things started to look a bit dicy - that is not really the case.
Mercenaries had to rely on their reputation to sell their services. Having a bad reputation of breaking contracts all the time or fleeing the battlefield at the first sign of things going badly was bad for business and something mercenaries couldn't afford. Yes, mercenaries switched sides because they where hired by someone else, yes mercenaries did retreat from battles and maybe a bit earlier than other troops, but they where still a reliable force. They had to be or no one would hire them.
Are there any instances where a lord decided to switch sides in the middle of a battle and his retinue (or at least a "significant" portion) went against him?
No, because they were working for their lord, not his lord. As an example, in the battle of Bosworth, one side was led by Richard III, one by Henry Tudor, and a large contingent of Richard’s forces were commanded by Baron Stanley, Henry’s step father, who changed sides from the royal army to Henry’s in the early part of the battle. Stanley’s army had no problems switching sides at their lord’s command (because they were not King Richard’s men, but Lord Stanley’s).
Many times
Defection happens often but rarely in midst of battle.
Somebody turned up in the village with the latest recruitment tapestry. The one where the soldiers stood around while the Syrian prayed didn't go down to well........
Hey Matt! Badges and livery colours (essentially demonstrating "ownership", which would be worn by an armiger's followers) are not heraldry. Heraldry deals with unique devices that can only be worn by the armiger himself. An armiger is a person entitled to use a heraldic achievement either by hereditary right, grant, matriculation, or assumption of arms.
Those indenture system contracts sound a LOT like the enlistment contract I signed in '79....
Well, I'm probably biased, but as far as I know, Swiss mercenaries, the so called Reisläufer, where not only famous because of their quality, but also loyalty to the hiring master. But for sure, I would agree to what you said about that in general, mercenaries were less loyal or motivated than regular soldiers
Was just thinking it would be awesome to see a collab between you and Jason Kingsley of Modern History TV!
This was really interesting. One topic that doesn’t seem to get much discussion is the logistical side, who and how food and fodder was procured for armies in this period. Also, do you know anything about the role of camp followers and how their numbers compared with the troops?
That's why the Mongols were so successful, they had a solution to the supply (as well as the training of Mongolian soldiers and the recruitment of the defeated enemy).
China was conquered for the Mongols by a Chinese soldier, and the Golden Horde was also called Kipchak(kazach) khanat!
I imagine the promise of loot was the major incentive.
Aha, Swiss troops in the thumbnail art.
Very interesting video, thanks! It complements the previous one on ages of the people in battle, and I think there's a missing episode in this "trilogy": who went to war and how was that decision made? From what I've heard (and correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that all these forms of recuitment were to some extent based on "volunteering" (in a broad sense: the army needs let's say 100 men out of a village of 500, so some go and some don't ) and there wasn't the modern idea of universal conscription that recruits every able-bodied man and sends them to the front. It seem this is a feature of modern warfare for a variety of reasons. I imagine the decision of whom to send was made at family/community level and perhaps the people who were more "expendable" (i.e. that the family/community could afford to lose) were sent. If war was for men, was it considered unseemly to send boys, to possibly die "before their time" (i.e. before they've had a chance to marry and have a family)? I imagine that the father (and maybe grandfather) within a household would consider it his duty to answer the call to arms, before sending his teenage son. Consider also that war was much more than thrusting a spear. It required months on campaign away from home, discipline, following orders, looking after yourself, interacting with strangers who perhaps spoke another language/dialect, resisting the temptation of alcohol, gambling, and prostitutes... all things teenagers would not be particularly good at.
In addition, I wonder if the army would have even wanted boys. A big part of medieval battle is to look formidable, and the last thing you want is probably for your beardless teenage face to broadcast to the enemy "this is my first time and I don't know what I'm doing!". If you show up with a unit of teenagers in your ranks, the enemy is first going to laugh at you, then he's going to send a cavalry charge or a unit of veterans to outmaneuver them and break their ranks. Now the rest of your army has to fight and try to patch a hole in its formation at the same time.
Your videos rule. As an aspiring fantasy writer with a love for the middle ages and history in general, your videos are a great source of information to infuse into a fictional world.
How were full time retainers/ house guards recruited and trained?
They were hired by individual nobleman so i assume it would vary from one lord to the next as they would recruit people as they see fit
@@trevdestroyer8209 what pool they recruit from though?
Matt says "Those who fight" and music plays in my head...
I would be interested on video about mercenaries equipement
In a medieval army, who generally owned the tents, wagons, and other camp equipment for common soldiers?
Was it just part of a lords duty? Or did soldiers own them themselves? Or the responsibility of the king?
Obviously I sure nobility owned their own tents but what about the common soldiers?
It was the lords duty to equip his troops
Common soldiers were generally provided by the town that sent them, their lord, if they were part of his retinue, or were coming up with on their own accord, tent would likely be shared by quite a few people, so they could split the expenses. In case of levied expeditions from towns and villages etc. those places were generally legally obliged to send specified amount of men, with provisions for certain amount of time.
People who were doing it more professionally, as a part of retinue etc. would generally own their own stuff to be prepared and comfortable with marching on.
Kings, or other high lords definitely would not bother with equipment of common men, with some exceptions, it wouldn't even be realistic with communication etc. that existed then.
Awesome!
For an RPG campaign I am trying to come with a "large-ish raid" (like 50 boats of 50 people?) and wondering how many churches and town they can hope to raid, how much trade they can do?!
Not sure it's a really relevant question here, but just putting it out there.... :P
I liked this it was very informative and i foud you holding a sword kept my interest too as much as they might be embarrassing to say
Thank you for the video
Can you say more on the relationships between recruitment, tactical deployment and the type of soldier?
While it makes sense for all of a nobles' retainers to fight together under one standard, would mercenaries or levies be mixed in, or a separate group (say on one flank)? What kind of troops are raised by each method?
Also what exactly do you meant by a "man at arms" here? Properly speaking i think this term means people armed in the manner of a knight, rather than household troops of lower status, eg footsoldiers with bills or spears?
Cool! Could you also do something on recruitment in the earlier middle ages?
Great video! I've been reading about medieval recruitment myself lately, so this video is well timed.
One question: do these methods of recruitment largely hold true for post-norman conquest England in general? Or are they unique to the 14th-15th century?
Thanks!
I love how you've minimized all the circular shoulder and elbow motions if the karambit to only involve the hand!! Very as above, so below!!
I have a question:
Were there cases of soldiers (of any type) refusing to fight (or switching sides) because they received rubbish equipment?
I can imagine that a levied peasant might have some motivation to fight, but they, for instance, received rusty or blunt weaponry and realized that there was no point in fighting when they were so poorly equipped... But perhaps they just did it anyway or they didn't have a frame of reference so didn't know their equipment was sub-par?
It’s crazy how when there were regiments, some full-strength units were supposed to supply 8,000 pints of beer per day. Not really medieval, but it makes you wonder how Bavaria could spend 74% of its tax the entire war on just 30 year war.
The contracts were fascinating. I mean, most people are at least vaguely aware that the various levels of chivalry housed a few more or less professional soldiers, and that regular peasants were expected to produce a family member to follow their lord into battle (not my favourite way of organising society, for sure). And mercenaries are essentially unchanged even in modern times - overpaid, under-regulated, unreliable and a constant source of international drama.
But captains basically signing up individual dudes to go fight on per contract basis, like it's basically just work, that's a refreshingly non-medieval sounding thing (and quite possibly a strong hint that all the issues with the above three methods were of as much concern to medieval military thinkers as they are to modern ones.)
(Seriously, the amount of time Machiavelli spends discussing the issues with army loyalty and motivation is a substantial block of the entire text. No-one has ever found a reliable source of loyal cannon-fodder for military endeavours, and the further back you go, the worse it seems to get.)
Anyway. Cool sword Matt! =)
Thats a great topic for a nation on the brink of civil war. You folks may need to know this. By the way, when are you going to put out more swords with the Royal Armories?
Don't talk rubbish it's all blown up out of proportion. It's actually unusual not to have a few riots. These are just unemployed foot ball hooligans. Nowhere have I seen scenes as bad as my local town after a football match.
About merceneries. There is big Teutonic castlle in Poland. Never conquered in batlle. After Teutonics Knights financial situation goes bad, merchenary comander sold it to polish king. For a lot of gold indeed. So much gold that insteadgiving them gold, polish king give them land and titles
Is it me or did he say that Men at Arms were from the worker class and were part-time. Pretty much everything I've raid they were either professional retinue or professional mercenaries (if not also a knight or or nobility) and full time paid soldiers.
Hey Matt, big fan from Sweden! If I got a specific question for you on related topics like this and others, in what way do I reach you the best?
When the troops were conscripted from a town, would they be trained? Would they just be put on a battlefield and wished the best of luck?
Town troops had some training, about as much as modern reservists. Notice how well the Ukrainians have been doing, even from the beginning of the Russian invasion? It can work.
Pointee end towards enemy
Townfolk would have their own martial culture, particularly in German towns. Like crossbow shooting contents etc.
Plenty of townfolk would have military experience too.
So level of "training" would depend on many things, but generally if it was expedition from a town, quite naturally people with most experience and knack for military life would be sent.
Does anybody happen to know of a similar source on German late Medieval forces?
I’m currently making a homebrew Medieval game and while I’ve got most of it down I will always appreciate more sources.
How many men would a normal knight have under his command? Or who was in his revenue or lance.
A Lance theoretically consisted of the knight, his squire, and two sargeants (men-at-arms or well-armed yeomen).
@davidweihe6052 I believe that was the minimum size of a lance dictated by ordnance, Orginally the size of a lance was minimum of 3 and later grew to a minimum of 6 (Knight included)
I want to hear more about the archers who got sacked.
Was there any sort of assurances of pay getting back home? were soldiers payed in coinage while on campain, or was it more like promissory notes?
Could anyone tell me how mercenaries in the 14-16th centuries got their commissions? Did potential employees send out emissaries abroad to get them to where the war was? Did they audition for the contracts? Hang out around fields-of-battle-to-be with signs saying "Would be a shame if the other side hired us" in the languages of both belligerents?
From The Calendar of the Fine rolls
SALOP.
The hamlet held of the king in chief
by service of finding a footman with a bow, two arrows and a bolt
(uno bujone) in the king's army if there shall be war between the king
and the prince at Wales, who seeing the Kings enemies, shall shoot his two arrows at them and then return to his own country unless
the king wishes to retain him further at wages.
E. Ina. p.m.
File 6. (18.)
Edward 1 in the Welsh wars had a continual stream of men turning up at the landowners expence for forty days or until they shot their three arrows. One man was instructed to bring three blunt arrows without feathers and at the end of his term he was to shoot them into three parts of the castle.......what the hell that was about I do not even want to guess. If the forty days were up and the Arrows had not been used I suspect they became crown property. War on the cheap.methinks
I was watching Shakespeare’s Henry IV parts 1&2 the other day and am reminded of Falstaff being given money as a Captain to raise a levee and using it to extort money. What do you think of Shakespeare as a source given he was just after the Wars of the Roses? I imagine the crowd were having a good laugh at something they recognised…
“I have misused the king's press damnably.
I have got, in exchange of a hundred and fifty soldiers, three hundred and odd pounds”
Shakespeare was born almost 80 years after WotR, and was likely simply describing something similar to practices in military around 1600.
It worked kind of like that all around Europe, king, or some other high lord, was giving authorization to raise specified troops with specified conditions, and of course he had to receive money for all the expenses as well.
Surely it's as simple a clicking "raise levies" and then they all pop up in your capital.
I like the beard Matt.
Who provides the bows for the farmers ?
Peasants wouldn't be bowmen, or even called into service very often. English longbowmen were Yeomen, or people that owned 100 acres of land or more. They wouldn't have been workers on the land, more like overseers or simply land lords. They would, like almost all soldiers, provide their own equipment. Yeomen were just one step below knights and often served as sort of civil servants such as sheriffs, bailiffs, etc. As Matt mentioned the only people likely to have equipment provided to them would have been town militias. They weren't going to provide any bowmen as that takes a lifetime of dedication to master, so if they were going to provide any type of missile armed troops they would have been crossbowmen. Many people don't know that there were plenty of crossbowmen in English armies but they get overshadowed by the longbowmen as that is what people tend to focus on. Although there may have been Yeomen, who were by law supposed to be bowmen, who lived in a town and rented their lands out so could have been called to service with the rest of the militia.
@@robo5013 I think I heard a lot of them were also urban artisans, i.e. from guild families. Especially second and third sons who weren't going to inherit their father's business but had the money for a bow and the rest of their kit, and decided military service was their shot at fortune.
Themselves
Fighting in shield wall/pike square or archery requires lots of training though. How did they get all the non permanent retainers or draftees up to speed?
Whip
A personal war. So, a feud? That's what is was called in Germany at least: "Fehde".
Looking good with the beard Matt
What sword are you holding? I think I should make a model of it for 3D printing.
Windlass Royal Armouries Wakefield hanger. I've got one and it's lovely! Tod also does one.
How did they do it in early medieval times? Was it similar?
I do have a question about the commissions of array. How were such formations led? Did the towns and cities have a permanent group of professional soldiers who would command the rotating draftees? Something equivalent to the modern career officers and NCOs? Or is that thinking about it in the wrong way?
I believe it would either be 'chosen among peers' or 'whoever has spent the most time doing this stuff'.
Hire professionals soldiers ie capatains
Hire local lower nobility to lead them. That way you both have a small group of professional soldiers at hand for peace time and to lead the militiamen in war. On top of that you prevent these noblemen from starting feuds against you.
Wait, there's information in books!?!
How does that work, then, do they have bluetooth, or something?
Thise where the wild days when it comes to farmers. evrybody should have weapons and armour. Know how to use them. one of the stranest things i ever heard of was a full on war between Gotland and Visby 1288. after what i understand. the towns pepole and the farmer had a bit of a argument about. how much the farmers should pay at the gate. but with military weapons and armour in hands of the population. I am kind of sure that this isn´t the only time things got a bit out of hand.
Well done Matt! This is one of the very few videos where you mention that the discussion is about the late medieval period, not the medieval period in general. This is good because the medieval period lasted for about 1000 years and included times of very, very different circumstances.
Presumably, if a recruiter turned up at a dirt-poor farming village and offered a teenager some precious metal, the options are a) Break your back, working dawn-to-dusk until your body finally breaks down and disease carries you away one winter, or b) March away, get fed, get given some gear and listen to everyone talk about how much money they can make in a sack. It's not like anyone is going to come back to the village and tell the real story.
that is not what was happening since the recruiter would look for people with equipament and training not just random dudes.
i always wonder how useful the average farmhand would be in an army. Also: when comparing to the modern day, the average townperson is nigh useless if you give them a weapon.
They were encouraged to train in use of a bow at least once a week
Guess how future armies will be recruiting.
How were the soldiers who had other jobs get trained to fight in army?
Would other places in Europe have been using similar systems as here?
How were troops recruited in China, or the Steppes?
I wonder if retainers of a lord sometimes betrayed them? Just to be rid of that lots. This might be modern way of thinking, but still
Betray them? And similaniously lose a good job and social status, and gaining the wrath of basically everyone.
Lords would dislike you for killing allies/family or just messing with the social system. The church will dislike you for killing unjustly. The burgers will dislike you for killing an established trade partner, the peasants will dislike you for killing their legal protector.
And no it's certainly not a modern way of looking at things either. How many modern private security companies betray their clients 'just to be be rid of them'?