Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Longbow Mercenaries Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
K. Larson




Location: Shanghai
Joined: 04 Oct 2007

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:54 am    Post subject: Longbow Mercenaries         Reply with quote

Long-time lurker, first time poster.

I've been struck by a question:

To what extent were there mercenary longbowmen? Were there any?

The ever-fascinating GMU economics dept. prompted this question with their paper on the economics of medieval mercenaries. http://www.personal.psu.edu/~dxl31/research/p...enary.html The paper is excellent, and I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in thinking about medieval warfare from a slightly different academic perspective.

To whit, the paper asserts that mercenaries will appear in the military marketplace where 1) there are significant gains from military specialization 2) the costs of maintaining these forces are high and 3) there exists a lack of competitive alternate jobs for these forces.

English/welsh longbowmen seem to fit the bill. 1) The longbow was the machine-gun of the medieval world, a fabulously effective weapon that could dominate the battlefield. 2) The longbow was only useful in the hands of a highly-trained archer, achieving combat efficiency only after decades of constant practice. 3) These archers were basically minor farmers when not in combat.

Italian farmers left their fields in the thousands to take up the crossbow. Swiss farmboys left their fields to take up the pike. Did English and Welsh farmers band together and sell their highly-specialized and highly destructive services to the great powers of Europe? I'm not aware of any examples, but my history is lacking. If they didn't, why not? The economic factors would seem to predict a vibrant market in the longbow mercenary.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 28 Feb, 2008 1:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Usually English archers only turn to such activities when the wars the english king is in are in a lull. It seems usually that Edward III tried controlling where they could sell their services as well, perhaps indicating a politcial aim to their employment as hired bows.

They end up all over the place fighting spain, italy and other locations as mercenaries. The most famour is John Hawkwoods small force but it should be noted he had archers ane men at arms as well. Best to look out for Kenneth Fowlers book on Medeival Mercenaries -http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/review23.htm It is the ebst I know of for such a topic.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
William Knight




Location: Mid atlantic, US
Joined: 02 Oct 2005

Posts: 121

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 1:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Burgundy, man. There were a -lot- of English mercenaries employed by the Burgundians in the latter 15th century, for at least some phases of the Burgundian wars. Not as sure about their usage in the 14th century, but it may well have been wider because England generally exerted more influence outside of its own backyard during the reign of Edward III.

-Will
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 4:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have been shooting a 65 lb longbow for about 2 years now. I don't get to shoot too often. Perhaps I have been to the range 30 times over two years. It is pretty much a straight stick and I shoot off the hand. Neither of my eyes is dominant so I usually shoot 12 arrows with one arm and then switch to the other in the next volley. I find it is a good way to rest and keep shooting at the same time.

I would like to share my experience with regard to how long it might take to become an effective archer. From the first day on the range and with a little instruction I was able to hit a target at 20 yards at least half the time. Not the bulls-eye, just the target. At 70 yards I was able to get the arrow within 20 feet at least half the time and I managed one lucky shot on the target. Since the first day my accuracy has improved somewhat but not all that much.

From my own experience and watching others I have drawn a few conclusion. First is is really hard to become a consistently accurate target shooter. Second, it is really easy to learn to shoot an arrow and get it in a general area. Now with reference to military archers, I don't think most of them would need to be that good or experienced if shooting into an opposing army in tight formation. Each side might have a few really accurate archers that perhaps my be trying to pick off commanders, but I think that the main objective of military archers is to fill the sky with arrows. I do not think that takes too much training from my experience and observation. I think the real challenge is in discipling your archers not to run at the sight of a charging calvary. This is no different then disciplining any other foot soldiers.

With regard to the strength requirements to pull heavy bows. Most men today can't even pull a 100 lb bow because all they do is punch keys on a keyboard all day. However in a period where people worked with the hands, getting army up to 100 lb draw weights would not be that hard. I can pull up to 120 lb and I'm only 5'8", 220. I can easily see a 6'4" 300 lb man going past 150 lb draw weights.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Glennan Carnie




Location: UK
Joined: 23 Aug 2006

Posts: 289

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 12:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's perfectly possible to be accurate with a heavy bow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKxMq-THdO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTerr5qqKd0

In the first video the archers are just clowning around (after a decent number of beers, too). The bows used are all over 100lb draw weight and shooting 2.5 - 3oz arrows. The target is a small doll's head hanging on a string at 30yards.

As you can see, even when they are not shooting from their 'standard' stance, the archers are either hitting, or coming extremely close to, their target.

Accuracy with a bow has nothing to do with its draw-weight, only the ability of the archer to manage that weight. These guys are as accurate with 100lb+ bows are most longbow archers are with 50lb bows. And you don't have to be a hulking neanderthal to achieve this. At least two of the archers in these videos are under 5'10" and weigh under 160lb. (By the way, Martin Harvey, in the second video, is 60 years old.) Even my wife (who's only 5'4") can shoot a 75lb well.

That said, I think Vassilis is correct. There is a common misconception (mostly, it seems, amongst archers!) that the medieval military archer was simply a target archer with a heavy bow, picking off his targets one at a time.
The bow was a tactical weapon, used en-masse, and at range, to control or constrain your enemy; or to disrupt cavalry. Sure, at 30 yards, you can put an arrow through an man's eye-slot (I've done it) but that's your last arrow; it's too late after that. At that point the archer becomes infantry. The bow is useless at close range in a combat situation
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 7:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just to tag on some to what Glennan said. Medieval archers in England were known through all Europe as the best archers because the amount of training and skill they gained from this. We also know from a fairly early time men were compelled to shoot at the butts, later legally oblugated to. Even if people were not as dedicated as they should have been there were sufficient numbers that during most of Edward III's reign the arrays that gathered men never were lacking a good crop of archers and at times they even had to reject decent archers as they could not afford to pay any more of them. One of the common wordages used in commissions of array are try, test and array, which indicates some type of selection process to get the best from them.

When Glennan and a number of us were at an event I think some of the guys managed some 7-8 arrows in 32 seconds. so some 14-16 in a minute.

I do agree that very likely in great part it was just mass volley's as with several thousands before you aim is not as important as volume probably.

I will disagree slightly with that after 30 yard all archers become infantry. This is in many cases true. Cliff Rogers has stated that it seems some archers at least continued to loose arrows point blank while the men at arms engaged. Not sure exactly how it works but there are a good number of contemporary chronicles that indicate once they had engaged the english men at arms arrows continued to fly. It is impossible to know the distance from the archers to the enemy men at arms but we can assume that if they engaged the english MAA they were fairly close. IN a burgundian account from the 3rd quarter of the 15th it states that archers should be trained to do this as well, loosing arrows from within the men at arms or behind them (it compares this to shooting from a wall). The agincourt account of the Chaplain indicates that the archers only engaged AFTER their arrows were gone.... this seems to pop up in a few accounts and would make sense that after your primary weapon was done you went in with the secondary, similar to knights on horseback with the lance. After it was done pull the hand weapon and keep fighting.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Spreier




Location: Central Oregon
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 8:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Great topic! I'm a Medieval Studies major in college and mercenaries just happen to be my main interest, albeit my geographical focus is the Italian peninsula. During one truce in the 100YRS War, there were numerous bands of English and French who formed "free companies" and took to the mercenary life. Arguably the most famous of these was lead by Sir John Hawkwood, an Englishman. Hawkwood went to Italy and became the most sought after condottiero of his time, eventually becoming the Capitan-General of Florence. He also changed the tactics of how battles were fought in the Peninsula by relying heavily on his dismounted men-at-arms and his longbowmen. During the years, as attrition took its toll, Hawkwood repeatedly applied to and sent serjants to England for more recruits, esp. longbowmen.

So they were used quite a bit, at least by one of the most famous and effective condottieri.
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
The agincourt account of the Chaplain indicates that the archers only engaged AFTER their arrows were gone.... this seems to pop up in a few accounts and would make sense that after your primary weapon was done you went in with the secondary, similar to knights on horseback with the lance. After it was done pull the hand weapon and keep fighting.
RPM


At Agincourt the English had time to set up wooden barricades so the French calvary could not charge into them. The archers where free to shoot at the French even from 10 feet away. In such short distance the arrows would have been more then just harassing. That is when the French calvary realized their situation and turned around and charged into their own infantry lines creating a tangled mess that decided the outcome of the battle. Had the French been more decisive and and began the battle before the English set up their barricades, I think the outcome might have been different. The other option would have been to just let the English sit there and starve. These were the two issues debated by the French.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
William Knight




Location: Mid atlantic, US
Joined: 02 Oct 2005

Posts: 121

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 10:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not sure about the claim that wielding a Mary Rose bow would be enormously easier for a medieval than for us. I mean, bows use some pretty particular muscle groups, so in many ways they are their own thing. Even with modern strength training it still takes an ass-load of practice to pull a 120 lbs bow. Also though they may not have been target shooting, Medieval English archers probably needed to get a good bit of practice in to get their rate of fire up to something that would threaten a cavalry charge (though of course stakes were important in receiving one, obviously).

There's an entire chapter in Strickland and Hardy's book The Great Warbow (which is flawed by being released before The Knight and the Blast Furnace ended the arrows vs. armour debate but is otherwise pretty good) dealing with archers outside of the England, both English archers in foreign service and other nationality archers, to a lesser extent.
-Wilhelm
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 10:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

To get back to the original question of the post, I to am interested in the aspect of English Yeomen who might have served England in war, but were otherwise farmers or craftsmen, not mercenaries. Pay during war was actually good by craftsman's standards, so I could see it being an attractive second career. Were there many of these? Or were most bowmen full time professional bowmen for life?

Some traditions given in "The Bowyer's Bible"; bowmen were expected to be capable of making their own bow and fletching their own arrows, etc. This concept gives me the impression of a dual craftsmen or farmer/ bowyer. I don't know the answer, but am interested in the issue of whether or not non-mercenary bowmen were an exception, or common.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 1:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Vassillis,

Yeah that is another possible combo to give added shooting time.

William,

You are not saying that the Knight and the Blast Furnace ended the armour verse arrow debate right? I just might not understand it how it is written. If you are saying so there are some pretty big errors in Williams formulas that he used to reach his conclusion- most in particular exceptionally low draw weights for both the long bows and crossbows making his testing of them and conclusion therefore nearly useless for anything but the lowest level of bows possibly used.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
James R.Fox




Location: Youngstowm,Ohio
Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 2:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sirs-All I can say is get a Good history of the Hundred Years war. Jonathan Sumption"s "The Hundred Year's War Vol 1 Trial by Battle". is a good one All the english soldiers were paid and hired by contract, the feudal system had broken down and no 14th cent English soldier of any rank lifted a finger without his 2 months pay in advance and an agreed share of the loot.There were minor exceprtions amongst the northern frontier soldiers, but even those men expected to be paid eventually, although the local loyalty to the Percy or the earl of Warwick would get then out on an emergency basis. The barons who kicked King John's booty had pretty well set the precident that they owed NO service outside England. Edward II's abuses of the commission of array to get men for his scot wars had pretty well shut down that source of men for any real service to his son even if everybody did recognize the duty of every free man to have the weapons of his rank, to practice with them at set times, and be ready to fight for his country-which in England by that time pretty much meant his county or shire.The same is true of France-read Prof. Sumption's decription of Pillip VI's battles to get money to pay his "Feudal" nobility.The political incompetence of Pillip the Fair's sons and their advisors had stuck Phillip with alot of bad baggage, and he had never been raised or traind to be king, and did NOT want the job.Also, like many of the Valois dynasty he was mentally unstable. The fact the he was a personally brave, hardfighting knight ( he was badly wounded at Crecy and had 2 horses killed under him which is more that Edward III did) doing a job he didn't want cut no ice, it was no money,no battle.To sum up by the 1340's everyone was technically a mercenary except people like Edward III and I never heard of him turning down a fat ransom or a waggonload of someone elses property.
Ja68ms
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 10:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James,

Yes have read Jonathan Sumption's volumes more times than I care to say. It is one of the stand bys for chronology of the 100 Years War now.

Don't discount the commission's of array. In great part that is what I am studying full time right now from the royal documents and can say it just is not so for all the 14th. There are clearly men being brought into service by the old commission of array until in the late 14th century, indenture had not taken over completely yet. The Crecy Campaign and siege of Calais clearly are in part from the arrays with thousands of archers drawn from the counties and towns. There are literally hundreds of rolls in the Patent and Close rolls that certify this taking place. The Commission of array in many ways was adopted to use jointly with the feudal system and when the feudal system dropped off in the 13th-14th, it continued. The array was Edward I's way to better the old levy to pull more and more men from the villages, towns and cities of the kingdom that would be better armed and armoured. This did not replace or change feudal summons though but in addition to. This, the feudal summons, is replaced in the 14th century finally more or less by the indenture which solves the major issue with people not showing up with full equipment or men in their companies promised. The requirement to not serve outside of the kingdom was indeed established early in the 13th for feudal service, and was another benefit to indenture but the king danced around even then by claiming sections of france were his so in fact they were still fighting in the king's wars in the kingdom, this happens clearly in the battle of St. Sardos.

Men working for their king for money were not mercenaries, unless you consider anyone receiving wages at war one then you are right. This was money expected to pay the huge expenses of war in great part. Loot was a profit in most cases but to call someone taking money from their king for war is like calling the US army mercenaries working for the US, which is not correct. Edward I begins the payments of knights in war, though some refuse from tradition it is quickly instituted as a major asset and incorporated into the military organization- See the Three Edwards by M. Prestwich. Even if the money was pure profit that they made from the king it could be looked at as a wage to offset their normal work wages at home.

The last feudal summons is actually in 1385 by Richard II. It is likely used by him to prove his authority more than anything but he still does make a feudal summons that year.

Indenture just fits better with war abroad. You get the number of men you want armed to your req's for the time you wish where you wish the only issue is keeping them paid, which is not always easy. Edward III defaulted to many of his armies wages, especially the nobility, owing the earl of Arundel some 20, 000 pounds when the earl died- not that he needed it, when he died he had some 60,000 pounds from his vast lands at home stored up and donated some to the king. Back payment from the wars is a common occurence in the Patent and Close Rolls. Seemingly though the archers and lesser soldiers had less to fear as the captain was expected to pay regardless of the king had payed him in the thought that he would be recompensed later... which usually happens but not also.

So yes by the 14th the indenture does more or less phase out the feudal levy but do not get the feudal levy mixed up with the commission of array, and men being paid to war, especially outside their kingdom for their king are hardly mercenaries in the way the post is using it.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
James R.Fox




Location: Youngstowm,Ohio
Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 12:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall-I have never read "The Three Edwards" I'll have to get it.I want to get some more material on indentures and also commissions of array,but it was my impressions that effective commissioms of array were heavily dependant on politics by this time period on. I know Edward IV effectively raised some armies by commission of array during the Wars of the Roses, and the northern marcher lords like Percy or the Bishop of Durham could as well for defense against the Scots, but in the north we have a situation in which the men involved were the natural,habitual leaders of the community or shire defense , and with Edward IV the men were serving s political leader to settle a political problem as much as a war.Maybe my outlook is influenced too much by the problems of Phillip VI. His nobility were much more overtly feudal,but Phillip was so personally and politically unpopular in fact he could not raise an effective army without paying it.As for the war of St Sardos, I believe Gascony was in fact still an English possession, but on what terms was the problem. As for using commissions of array in Edward II's wars against Robert Bruce, those were definitely felt to be an abuse, especally after Edward II started imposing requirements that the men involved buy more armour and better weapons at their own expense, espically for the foot soldier town levies.I guess what I was trying to say was that a popular King or noble could get away with much more than an unpopular one,and a king pursueing popular policies could use indentures less and and commissions of array more. However if you have to pay an army before it will agree to fight, I think you are dealing with mercenaries.(That's not the case for the US army US soldiers have always been paid by tradition, and in moden time the army is trying to retain specialists whose skills are much more valuable to private industry, not to another countries army)
Ja68ms
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 12:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James,

That is very true. A popular king could get away with much much more. Unpopular not likely. Even Edward I and Edward III had their issues though. If Sluys and Crecy had not been won Edward III would have been in serious problems. I respect Philip for a great number of things but Edward III was involved with combat as well but seemingly he was a good general and directs the battles which might in fact have been more useful in some aspects.

The problem with commissions of array that Edward II gets is in part about armour req's but in more part the quantity and how often he required men. He was always, always requesting more and more men. In a section I wrote about London you see that Edward II orders likely in the thousands of men from the city in a year. Unacceptable, Even rich and populous london has limitations and men of all social status often dodge service because the expense and discomfort not including the possibility of dying withstanding.

Gascony was indeed part of the kingdom. In many cases of feud set up you see a clause that specifically states england or wales as the limitations of service in the 13th and 14th as men see france as outside their home defence responsibilities and want it in writing for the reason the king's did not.

The problem with pay is that they needed pay for everything, food, transport etc. You could not leave without payment or you payed out of pocket. So try telling a man he has to leave his day job for a few months and pay for it and then possibly be maimed or die is just not going to really help with recruits. No one would do this except by force. By paying them they get money for food, travel etc. at not cost to themselves but time. In this way they are not mercenaries. They often did go to battle with payments withstanding but if the system is not paying problems will arise as few people wish to fight with an empty stomach from not being able to buy food. By regular pay they made it clear they were expected to practice and be equipped well for war- as you say they were trying to get trained specialists. This is not mercenary tactics but how one gets an efficient army. AS long as they serve Edward III or his delagate I would not consider them mercenary. Fowler in the mercenaries covers this as does Ayton and Curry in their respective chapters on English armies of the 14th and 15th centuries in Arms, Armies and Fortifications of the 100 Years War. This even more so is a must read regarding the subject as it is the best work on it I know of. In the end it is a definition issue. I would assume most Soldiers in the US if they were not paid would cease to be soldiers as well. We can be forced to go to war but they still will pay you for it. Payment is essential to war in general. What makes on mercenary to me is not having a static loyalty to one person or kingdom over money. There are clearly knights who switch sides in the battle but not usually over pay. The archers away at war would almost always return to Edward III when required to. Where is their first loyalty, to Edward. In Spain and Italy this happens when war sparks up again. They leave who they are employed by and return to the English Army.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 9:53 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:

The last feudal summons is actually in 1385 by Richard II. It is likely used by him to prove his authority more than anything but he still does make a feudal summons that year.
RPM


I am thinking there may have been more, later, before John of Ghent's death (around 1304, if I remember it right.) John of Ghent played the role of documenting most of the campaign indentures of Richard. I have the text "John of Ghent, The Last Knight." This book is good, but drones on and on about the huge volumes of indenture roles and document still surviving, that were either written, or transcribed into total records of campaign costs by John. One can deduce a lot about the spoils of loot and how wages were agreed upon. The procedures for division of loot, and shares due to lord/ king are even explained within this book.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That is possible. In fact it would seem likely but I am not familiar with any later feudal summons and the 1385 one was big and has been looked at very much so it was one I was familiar with. I know of some commissions of array from the 15th for foreign war though which has been said to not happen by that time yet in the Patent, Close Rolls and Foedera there are a few.

I will have to look up John of Ghent's book. Sounds interesting.

I have gotten to look over a large number of indentures and it seems the division of loot etc is very important to them as it is in most of them. Seems most are divided into thirds if I remember right. Ransoms are divided as well typically.

Something that I am thinking of studying when I have more time (who knows when that will be) is the how these organizations changed over time.

In Edward I's reign the general levy is deemed less effective so the commission is in use. The general levy is still used for defence seemingly at the same time. By the 15th the commission of array seems to almost exclusively be about defence. Into the 15th there are levies of all men 16-60 always for defence still and in york city's records it seems there may have been differences to them but I'd need to spend more time isolating them and the comparing and contrasting them.

Early indentures also have remains of feudal levies as the men the knights and captains pull up for service often were from their lands, though you find as time goes on men being taken from all over their lands and outside them. Recruitment is very interesting but I think there is so much of it and it changes over time that nothing I know of covers it all for the late medieval period let alone the medieval period.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
James R.Fox




Location: Youngstowm,Ohio
Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 11:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall-I never read Arms Armies and Fortifications of the Hundred Years War. That sounds likke I am missing a chunk of information I need to form an opinion, but then as I said,I want more information about indentures and comissions of aray. I know enough to know I lack alot of details,and the devil is is the details, as somebody or other ( maybe Louis XI once said..Louis, in his collected correspondence talks about his army being up s--- creek in his Burgundian campains, so who knows?) I think basically we are considering the problem of pay from two different viewpoints. I know many armies of that period either organized supplies ahead of time or. espically in the case of garrison troops or seige troops, paid them so the could buy food in local markets.I am thinking of a more narrow definition, troops that won't fight, or won't fight for a particular commander Unless they are paid.There IS a difference, basically political Prof Sumption talks about the condition of Edward III's army before Crecy. They had out run their supplies, they couldn't steal enough food, they had marched through their shoes, and they fought Crecy,basically for Edward.as all the accounts of Edward's telling jokes to his men before Crecy make quite clear.Outside his immediate circle of friends and advisors, Phillip was genuinely hated among large chuncks of his nobility Phillip fought at Crecy personally for one reason, he knew, if his men didn't that attacking English foot in formation was crazy, and to win the battle he was going to have to personally kill every englishman he could lay hands on as an example.And he had control of his men after the first charge, he organized five or six more,and that is a miracle with medieval cavalry. So, I guess I going to have to read the book you cited on the armies of the hundred years war, I may be far too fixed on the cash and politics nexus here.
Ja68ms
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 3:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:

I have gotten to look over a large number of indentures and it seems the division of loot etc is very important to them as it is in most of them. Seems most are divided into thirds if I remember right. Ransoms are divided as well typically.
RPM


The division was equally split, but 1/10th of the total to the first indentured lord (it was still possible to be a man at arms to a Duke or Baron), this Lord in turn owed 1/10th of his total share to the crown. The ransom arrangements are uncertain in my opinion. Technically the terms make it sound as if soldiers could have ransomed nobility (the most valuable targets). But in practice these valuable prisoners had a way of being snatched away by noble allies who in turn did the ransoming (a fraction sometimes awarded to those who actually captured the prisoner). I can think of several instances where nobles seized prisoners away from those who actually captured them( William Marshal accounts by David Crouch, Francis Gies recollections of Bertrand du Gesclin, etc.). At least in period account (primary sources), the idea of a mercenary-man at arms directly ransoming a noble prisoner with most of the money being received by himself does not seem to have been frequently recorded.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sun 02 Mar, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared,

The most usual contract for division of loot and such is 1/3 actually from what I have seen. 1/3 to the men, 1/3 to the captain and 1/3 to the king. Of course it can vary but 1/3 seems to be most common. Earlier periods it was more, usually 1/2.

I will see if I cannot get an indenture copied when I am at work today and post it tonight. Since they follow a formula it seems mostly like a fill in the blank form you get used to just going to the spot where the info you need is. The division of the indenture makes sense as the one's financially at risk are making their money back as is about the same today as anyone witha loan of mortgage can attest. If someone puts money up they expect.

Here is a section from Ayton's Knight's and warhorses.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rnHfh4tLQH...#PPA129,M1

It is at the very bottom of 129 to the top of 130.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Longbow Mercenaries
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum