One other thing that bears further explanation. For those of you reading who are already well aware of this please forgive me.

Today in the era of the modern State, we are used to all the rights and responsibilities of government and citizenship respectively to be collected together in clear packages.

In the feudal world, it wasn't so clear cut by any means.

For a given real place, different people or collective entities (like towns, families or religious Orders) could own many different rights and have many different responsibilities. So for example lets imagine a small parish in France consisting of 30 villages, a small town, and a forest and a lake. One individual might have the right to collect 5% (in cash equivalent) of all the fish caught in the lake, another gets 5% (cash equivalent) of the birds and beasts hunted in the forest, and a third gets 10% value of all the lumber. These last three may also have the responsibility (and the self interest) to assure that the lake doesn't get fished out, nor the forest hunted out or cut down. If they owned it and were under duress (ransoming a relative for example) or from sheer greed they might decide to cut down the whole forest for a quick profit. But in this case they only have the right to collect the fee.

One guy might have the right to collect the fines for all cases in the church court, yet another might have the right to collect the fines for all cases in civil court, and yet another still to collect the fines for the land court. One individual has the right to mint coins, and another to set weights and measures (and perhaps, also the responsibility to keep the roads clear and 3 bridges maintained).. One has the right to mill all the corn from 10 of the villages, and another for the other 20. One guy has the right to farm taxes from the villages, another to collect import tariffs, and a third to collect guild fees. And so on.

Every one of these individual rights, which in many cases represent income streams, can be given to different individuals, or you (as a Lord) might give 10 or 20 of them to one guy and 5 or 6 to another, and just 1 of them to a third. So with these kinds of money streams a king could finance people at a variety of different levels.

J

Jean,

Concerning the ministerial class: to begin simply, I don't disagree with any of your points generally. There is certainly evidence of the class as an appreciable entity among other regions of Europe besides German-speaking lands, and the widespread adoption of German law and social policies certainly made it possible for the ministeriales to thrive in many regions.

However, I have yet to see any major evidence suggesting that the ministeriales elsewhere attained anything near the quasi-noble status that they earned in Germany (as their estimation among the upper echelons on the Herrenschild implies) or that their major functions as professional mounted soldiers and ranking officials was ever adopted to any large degree within other European states. In Scandinavia and among the Teutonic States in Northeastern Europe, as well as in Italy, the direct relationship with the German model puts the presence of ranking ministeriales in those places beyond doubt. That does not mean that their quasi-noble status or the utility which was made of them was approved of or appreciated outside of the German spheres of influence, such as in France and England.

From Maurice Keen's Chivalry to Benjamin Arnold's German Knighthood 1050-1300 (and many books in between), I have not come across any contemporary research suggesting that a servile class ever attained such military or political dominance in any part of Europe except those under the direct influences of the Kingdom of Germany. As far as the matter of doing primary research on the topic goes, I'm afraid that my lack of linguistic skills and access to the documentation has prevented me from further delving. If you do have any information on particular circumstances of the ministerial class coming into its own beyond the immediate influence of German society and politics, I would love to be recommended to the sources (if there are any in English). I'm very interested in the subject and won't mind at all being proved wrong if that's the case. Thanks!

-Gregory

Greg,

Do you consider the Bishopric of Utrecht part of this Kingdom of Germany? They had ministeriales which either disappeared or were slowly raised into normal nobility as time went on.

According to a quick Wiki search, Utrecht's bishops were made princes of the Holy Roman Empire in 1024 (creating the prince-bishopric of Utrecht), and the city of Utrecht was actually granted its first rights by King Henry V of Germany in 1122. So yes, most definitely within the kingdom. For most of the medieval period in the Netherlands, either the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Germany or the Hanseatic League dominated the social and political spheres, and one of the main languages spoken in the region was Middle Low German. Culturally, there were definitely signs of many more influences due to the volume of commercial traffic in the many port cities, which added lots of flavor. But socially things remained quite Germanic as far as I'm aware.

As an aside, the Dutch were also quite innovative in their own right, especially when it came to village society. In Rosener's Peasants in the Middle Ages (which focuses on Germanic village life) he credits a number of intriguing village laws, traditions and technological innovations for land clearing to the Dutch who migrated into the lands east of Germany after the northern Crusades cleared out - or at least dwindled and tamed - the Slavic populations there. The distinctions made between the Dutch and Germans in the sources at least show that they were recognized as their own people, and of course their language and culture was already developing on its own despite the widespread use of Middle Low German and other influences.

Back on topic... I'm by no means saying that ministeriales only reached noble status within the confines of the German kingdom itself or even within the more far-reaching and highly fluctuating boundaries of the HRE, but my research shows that the trend was confined almost completely within regions that were highly influenced by Germany.

-Gregory

Gregory, I agree with you that only in the German-speaking and German-influenced lands do you see the ministerials rising in status so dramatically as an estate, organized and officially recognized, in ways and to an extent that was not happening in other parts of Europe. But in the context of armies per the OP, I think you did also see some serf knights (or the equivalent - poor retainers of humble background, armed and given horses by their lord) in places like England, Spain and Burgundy.

I think the unique thing about the German speaking areas, particularly east of the Elbe, was that so many of the ministerial class were used (and 'made' if you will) during the Ostiedlung and in the Crusades. As you probably know many of the Teutonic Knights and Livonian Knights were in fact ministerials or from ministerial families, including some of the Grand Masters.

Speaking of Burgundy wasn't Holland part of the Duchy of Burgundy as well for a while?


I agree with you by the way that the story of the Dutch and Flemish colonists in lower-Saxony and so on is really interesting, not only did they know how to drain swamps and make land out of the sea, they knew how to fight in those swamps quite well. Some zones like the Dithmarschen repeatedly defeated invading armies and killed numerous powerful Lords who tried to invade over the centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen

I was reading some excerpts of the Hamburg chronicles a few months ago for a paper, and I was amazed at how much trouble those Flemish 'peasants' gave everybody. Hamburg eventually just gave up and made them into a 'coast guard', i.e. paid them fixed fees to 'rescue' shipwrecked boat crews and goods (and not to resort to piracy). Even Lubeck and the Duke of Mecklenburg had to come to terms. The Hanseatic League ended up admitting the Dithmarschen as a member, the only other non town member other than the Teutonic Order.

The Flemish were also sent all the way to some districts in Bohemia and Poland and proved formidable there as well.

Jean

The best time to invade a swamp is in the winter when the ground freezes and hardens. Both the Livonian order and a few Counts of Holland learned this. I presume the Hanseatic league did too. In summer it's either soggy wide open fields filled with ditches, lakes and marshes or swamp forests like this.



[ Linked Image ]


Neither of the above mentioned is good for armies, it's either getting ambushed or being forced to fight in a bad position, it's essentially the advantages the Swiss had over the emperors in the early days but instead of mountains its swamps.

If you want permanent conquest you want to attack in the winter or with ships in summer, then you want to establish Zwingburg(en) along the coastline which can easily be supplied (but you'll need some kind of naval superiority for that) and from there on work your way inland building and garrisoning castles. A little bit of kindness goes a long way too. This is how Wales and parts of Frisia were conquered.

Yeah most of the 'free' peasant zones were in the midst of some kind of really difficult terrain. It was the same for the Swedes in their deep forests. Swedish peasants were pretty tough and militarily significant on their home turf.

One of the interesting things to keep in mind about the Swiss Confederation however is that while they did rely on fierce peasants from high in the mountains, arguably the core of their armies in many key battles were actually from the warlike cities on the northern fringe, especially Berne and Zurich, and they were in the foothills, not the mountains. Neither of those two towns are in particularly difficult terrain. They were just tough and innovative when it came to using new military technologies.

Jean

This is an interesting thread. I wonder if the Ordenamiento de Lanzas is similar to the Compagnies d´Ordonance of Charles VII of France. Ellis-Gorman describes them as "a sorta standing army" (Empahsis mine) They were supposed to be 12,000 men. Wikipedia calls it the first standing army since the fall of the Roman Empire. Charles VII also instituted the franc-archers, which were a militia. I wonder how often they were at full strength.

Every castle and city would have a peace time garrison, although small. It is possible that it was different in Britain. Cities transitioned from having militia doing pretty much all the guard duty to relying on professional soldiers. Each city typically had a captain, and he would have a handful of men that worked for him. When war broke out, then they would hire more. It may have worked differently in cities that weren’t Free Cities and were dependent on a Prince or King. There are though lots of stories that indicate, that even in times of war, cities weren’t always fully prepared. For example, Prague was captured when it was surprised. There was a war going on, but they weren’t expecting the enemy to be in the area and obviously didn’t have enough guards defending the wall.

Yeah, Wikipedia often contradicts itself within the same article. I think it would be better if it didn’t exist because it dominants search results, preventing a better alternative from being made.

I think that historians might not all agree on what exactly is a standing army, probably because of size. When does the royal bodyguard and various garrisons become an army?

It does make sense that size and threat of attack has to do with the decision to have a standing army. England was relative safe, being an island with only Scotland for a neighbour. Having a standing army meant being at a higher state of alert or partly mobilized all the time.

I wonder if the fact that English kings were usually fighting overseas influenced their reliance on mercenaries. I know sometimes laws made treated defensive war differently than offensive war, and it would be easier to find people to fight to defend their own homes. Especially as it would be easier for peasants to join an army for a few weeks and then return home for the harvest, when they didn’t live far away.

Also, a thought that I just had, that I think is an overlooked aspect of feudalism, is that vassals with fiefs were bivocational. A king that gave a fief for military service got not just a warrior, but a warrior and an administrator. Of course, the fief owner might have an agent, but still the King is giving away land, that if he kept himself, he would not be able to manage, and would also find a hard time holding an agent accountable.

[quote="Ryan S."][quote="Anthony Clipsom"]

Quote:

I meant hired troops instead of feudal levies. The captains of indentured troops were squires and knights, but how did they recruit the archers and others troops? Were they still vassals or paid troops?

Like today, the medieval English saw a difference between a paid soldier and a mercenary. Indentured soldiers were paid but part of the regular military structures of the time. Their relationship to their captains could be complicated. Some were relatives, others tenants, others former comrades or sons thereof and others who didn't have a direct connection to the captain but to someone else in the retinue. Yet others researchers have been unable to connect to anyone else. When the English thought mercenaries they usually meant bands of hired soldiers, often foreign. It is not clear to me how they regarded individual foreign paid specialists, such as gunners or engineers.

[quote="Anthony Clipsom"][quote="Ryan S."]

Anthony Clipsom wrote:

Quote: I meant hired troops instead of feudal levies. The captains of indentured troops were squires and knights, but how did they recruit the archers and others troops? Were they still vassals or paid troops? Like today, the medieval English saw a difference between a paid soldier and a mercenary. Indentured soldiers were paid but part of the regular military structures of the time. Their relationship to their captains could be complicated. Some were relatives, others tenants, others former comrades or sons thereof and others who didn't have a direct connection to the captain but to someone else in the retinue. Yet others researchers have been unable to connect to anyone else. When the English thought mercenaries they usually meant bands of hired soldiers, often foreign. It is not clear to me how they regarded individual foreign paid specialists, such as gunners or engineers.

In a German context, mercenaries are hired and paid sold. Others were called up and had to serve only for a limited time, and received just a bit of money for food etc.

Were yeoman called up, or did they volunteer?