# Paying for Armies in Fantasy



## Toby Frost (Apr 18, 2019)

Kings in fantasy novels tend to be able to recruit soldiers or hire them without much difficulty. In Renaissance Italy and Germany, the mercenary system was very well-organised, and the banking system was getting going, so I find it hard to believe that everything was done by handing over huge bags of coins.

In short, if a king wanted to hire a group of mercenaries, would that literally involve chests full of gold, or would some more sophisticated system of promises and debt be used?  Thanks!


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 18, 2019)

_Agincourt _by Juliet Barker goes into a lot of depth as to how Henry V paid his army - or in some cases, didn't, with there being a lot of debt stretching on for quite a period after (hardly period specific tbf!). There were written down contracts too, which were torn in half so each side had some proof. I forget how exactly he got the money but, well, promise and debt. Although obviously those are his subjects, not just people he's paying to fight.

I'll have a look at some books about earlier in the period when I get home for more details.


----------



## -K2- (Apr 18, 2019)

*Though I'm speaking in generalities, speculation and assumption;* regarding mercenaries don't forget the aspect of a promise of a percentage of 'spoils of war.'  Compared to the life of a peasant (often living off the generosity or more lack of attention by the local noble), I suspect soldiering might be quite the inducement particularly to younger men.  Besides the lack of toiling for each day of your life, gaining actual pay, you then had opportunity to earn bonuses pillaging, 'increasing the genetic influence'... _yeah, that's a creative way to say it,_ and so on.

I suspect (don't know) in some cases it was also an impressment of able bodied men.  IOW, you live on their lands, so when pressed, you were obligated to fill the ranks of an army.  Naturally, with now crops not being tended/brought in and most I suspect simply fodder for actual soldiers, that's a double edged sword.

Naturally, once conquerors realized how much it was costing them and more so how now instead of capturing a stable region they were left with an impoverished, resentful one soon experiencing a population explosion, I suspect they got smart and said enough of that.

K2


----------



## The Judge (Apr 18, 2019)

It's surely going to depend on how many people your king is hiring and how sophisticated they are.  Promises of money via some kind of credit system might work in some cases, but actual cash-in-hand is going to be most acceptable to your average mercenary, who is going to want to be able to pull out of a fight if it looks like he's chosen the wrong side, but won't want to forego some payment.  I can't give chapter and verse, but I recall reading that it wasn't unknown for mercenaries to switch sides half-way through a conflict.  A good enough reason for the king to pay by instalments or upon achieving a specific object.  Real property would also have been wealth, of course, so it might not be gold that was the payment -- perhaps a "Take X, and his castle and half of his lands are yours" kind of bargain.  There's also money to be made by trading via monopolies, so "Take Y city, and you'll have complete control over alum exports" -- as long as it doesn't mean creating another rival the king will want to get rid of later.

Not quite the same thing, but I know William the Conqueror paid the Danes to leave their alliance with Edgar in the 1069 uprising, and I'm pretty sure they were paid in cash before leaving -- I can't imagine Sweyn would have trusted William to hand over the money later.  But this was before the more sophisticated areas of banking had got going, of course.

Also not the same, but if your king isn't using mercenaries, but simply calling on his nobles to honour feudal commitments, there wouldn't be payment then, as the nobles would have received land (ie wealth) in advance and in return they would have given oaths to provide so many men etc.  If there's no feudal aspect, he could still call up an army by leaning on his major landowners with promises to pay lesser folk, but simply neglect to honour those promises -- the war against Scotland in the 1540s by Somerset as Lord Protector created huge problems for the treasury and the ordinary soldiers largely went unpaid, leading to mass desertions.


*EDIT*: re -K2-'s "spoils of war" -- until well into the C19th it was understood that victories at sea brought wealth to sailors if the prizes were kept (largely) intact, as the captured ships and any freight etc would be sold and the money distributed to all involved.  That's in the Royal Navy itself, not privateers, though with a lot more bureaucracy than in straightforward piracy!


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 18, 2019)

-K2- said:


> *Though I'm speaking in generalities, speculation and assumption;* regarding mercenaries don't forget the aspect of a promise of a percentage of 'spoils of war.'  Compared to the life of a peasant (often living off the generosity or more lack of attention by the local noble), I suspect soldiering might be quite the inducement particularly to younger men.



I can't answer for every case, but when you look at Henry V's army, the common bowmen/footmen were mainly not peasants, simply because peasants didn't have the money or time to have that sort of equipment, or practice properly. Henry V's army turned away a lot of bowmen who weren't good enough; I imagine that would be common place in other places.

And the majority of effective infantry forces in Western Europe in the middle ages (not all, but most) came from areas with a lot of big cities i.e. places that could have a large middle class that could afford good nutrition, armour, time to practice etc.etc.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Apr 18, 2019)

Hmm. I have vague memories of armies during the Hundred Years' War from Contamine's history. Indentures (a good thing, here) were contracts written twice and separated by a wiggly line, so you could match them distinctly, which set out the precise terms of pay and other important aspects (such as compensation, or not, for lost horses). Loot and the like would be part of that.

I read a little about 14th century condottiere [mercenaries in Renaissance Italy, often English or German] in a John Hawkwood biography. I think the terms were set down in contracts... a quick Wiki check suggests monthly payment (per soldier, so companies often exaggerated with 'paper soldiers' to get more pay, although that happened in the English system too).

Italy was a bit different to England, though, because of its number of large, independent, prosperous cities, so getting paid might just involve trotting to Florence, say, getting your cash and then going about your business.

The actual logistics of pay might depend a lot on both the political situation and the geography.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 18, 2019)

thaddeus6th said:


> Hmm. I have vague memories of armies during the Hundred Years' War from Contamine's history. Indentures (a good thing, here) were contracts written twice and separated by a wiggly line, so you could match them distinctly, which set out the precise terms of pay and other important aspects (such as compensation, or not, for lost horses). Loot and the like would be part of that.



This is correct - the majority of the indentures are available online at http://www.medievalsoldier.org


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 18, 2019)

The Wikipedia article on Condottieri, seems to be going towards your period Toby, and is pretty good for assuming basics (but as always, take with a hefty dose of salt). 

Essentially they were contracted and seemed to have been required to paid in monthly salaries. My guess is that there would be, as Peat implies, a number of other contract details - so for example I've seen some requirements that in certain cities or locals, the mercenaries have to trade with the local populous at fair prices for their food/lodgings etc... (and in others they would, I assume, be allowed to loot.) 

Peat re: where the soldiers came from, I guess it depends on what was happening. If there had been a great deal of conflict going on, there is likely to have been 'roving bands' of soldiery forming - a solider class? - that having taken part in a campaign, might go off and sign up for another, wait for the next one or just become bandits. So in times of continuous war you could get armies from them. The English got pretty notorious in the hundred years war for this sort of behaviour, and a good proportion of the English nobility were always eager for a French campaign, for glory, gold and the opportunity to pick the French countryside clean. 

Also there are other factors. I think, over the late medieval/Renaissance period it has been calculated something like a million Swiss men left Switzerland to fight in mercenary units - not because the Swiss had big rich cities, but because there just wasn't the space for these men to prosper - no opportunity, so mercenary work in the pike units was very appealing for these men to try and attain some wealth etc. In a similar way, when the Clan system in the Highlands of Scotland broke down and the clearances stripped away huge numbers of peoples livelihoods, joining the army was another way of escaping that.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 18, 2019)

I think by now the main thing to answering Toby's question is what level of sophistication is needed in a government before "You'll get paid all of it at some point, I swear" becomes acceptable and it isn't just all "Here's half your money and don't come anywhere near the strongbox where the other half is but it is coming with us".

EDIT: Sticking to the heavily Anglo-centric list of historical possibilities here, this article would seem to suggest a sophisticated and thought out logistics operation in 1924 under Edward I. It doesn't list at which point soldiers get paid, but for an operation like this, a certain amount of credit seems reasonable - ‘Mount the War-Horses, Take your Lance in your Grip . . .’ Logistics Preparations for the Gascon Campaign of 1294 » De Re Militari



Venusian Broon said:


> Peat re: where the soldiers came from, I guess it depends on what was happening. If there had been a great deal of conflict going on, there is likely to have been 'roving bands' of soldiery forming - a solider class? - that having taken part in a campaign, might go off and sign up for another, wait for the next one or just become bandits. So in times of continuous war you could get armies from them. The English got pretty notorious in the hundred years war for this sort of behaviour, and a good proportion of the English nobility were always eager for a French campaign, for glory, gold and the opportunity to pick the French countryside clean.
> 
> Also there are other factors. I think, over the late medieval/Renaissance period it has been calculated something like a million Swiss men left Switzerland to fight in mercenary units - not because the Swiss had big rich cities, but because there just wasn't the space for these men to prosper - no opportunity, so mercenary work in the pike units was very appealing for these men to try and attain some wealth etc. In a similar way, when the Clan system in the Highlands of Scotland broke down and the clearances stripped away huge numbers of peoples livelihoods, joining the army was another way of escaping that.



Oh, that group of pro soldiers definitely did evolve, and while I haven't looked particularly hard at the main sources of mercenaries in the period, I'm going to guess a lot of them were like the Swiss - places with more people than they could support successfully - but I am fairly sure that the original sources of those soldiers by and large, weren't peasants but minor craftsmen and the like.


EDIT EDIT: While digging around on De Re Militari (man I'd forgotten how much I love that website), I found this book review that has a very useful paragraph on the matters of pay:

"Matthew Raven looks at how Edward III ensured that his earls were paid for their military service. His relative success owed much to ruthless pressure on local administrators, frantic improvisation and the use of windfall profits. While Raven sees this as a qualified success, it hardly disguised the fundamental problem that English revenues could barely sustain the scale of military activity involved in Edward’s wars. This point emerges forcefully in Gary Baker’s account of the disastrous expedition of Sir Robert Knolles in 1370. Led by an experienced but low status soldier, this emerges as an attempt to wage war on the cheap with Knolles’ army eventually fragmenting in pursuit of plunder when royal wages ran out. In addition to discrediting the practice of pardoning criminals to serve in the ranks of royal armies, Baker argues that its failure prompted a major rethink of English strategy with a shift to cheaper naval operations. Also on the subject of the financial underpinnings of warfare, Adrian Bell and Tony Moore examine English participation in the Baltic crusades. Unsurprisingly they find that expeditions were assembled in ways reminiscent of how contingents were put together for royal service. Funding was more complex but English crusaders (and presumably those of other nationalities) were able to make use of established mercantile networks trading with the Baltic to facilitate the necessary transfers of funds. Put in somewhat anachronistic terms, the expenditure associated with crusade expeditions provided a form of “tourist” revenue enabling the region to balance a deficit in visible trade- no wonder the Teutonic Knights were reluctant to concede that Lithuania had become a Christian principality by the 1390’s. "


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 18, 2019)

The Big Peat said:


> I think by now the main thing to answering Toby's question is what level of sophistication is needed in a government before "You'll get paid all of it at some point, I swear" becomes acceptable and it isn't just all "Here's half your money and don't come anywhere near the strongbox where the other half is but it is coming with us".



Yes, and by the Renaissance, the governments/kingdoms are pretty sophisticated - they could always borrow money from bankers/lenders to organise mercenary pay. I'd guess that the mercenary contracts then would look a bit like modern day employment contracts . Generally speaking, it paid for both sides to be professional, so if the contract said you had to be paid monthly, the other side better deliver.



The Big Peat said:


> Oh, that group of pro soldiers definitely did evolve, and while I haven't looked particularly hard at the main sources of mercenaries in the period, I'm going to guess a lot of them were like the Swiss - places with more people than they could support successfully - but I am fairly sure that the original sources of those soldiers by and large, weren't peasants but minor craftsmen and the like.



Not sure. If we are just talking about medieval then the core of any army would be professional - as most nobles, as well as the king, had standing retinues, add to that any mercenaries, professional soldiers etc... Then the rest: "_During the reign of Henry III the Assize of Arms of 1252 required that all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed. The poorest of them were expected to have a halberd and a knife, and a bow if they owned land worth more than £2_" 

My guess would be that if the King ordered a levy, the vast majority of those coming forward would be villeins or of that level. Just because there were a lot more of them - society was essentially rural and poor. And, like the Swiss, it would have give someone in a dire economic situation a chance to improve their position. Craftsmen...I'd guess were probably more valuable to a state to produce stuff (and get taxed) and be as a percentage not really a big part of society ???  

For the hundred years war, when the English went on a 'walk through France' then they could only fund a certain number of men - to pay, transport, feed etc...so yes, I'm not surprised they probably turned down loads of poor warriors. But if they had been invaded instead, i.e. Harold's army in 1066, they probably pulled in more men from everywhere to defend the kingdom. 

You also see that with a lot of campaigns, with a great many different cultures, even up to the turn of the twentieth century, tended to disband their armies at harvest time because the soldiers had to get back to their bits of land to pull the harvest in. (Yes, I believe this was a concern for the Austro-Hungarian army in the weeks following the assassination of Archduke Frank Ferdinand in August 1914!). Not something that would really concern craftsmen.

On the other hand, cities would form militias from their citizenry, so they I'd guess these units would have traders and craftsmen in their ranks, so for example the London regiments in the wars of the three Kingdoms were vital for the forces of Parliament at the start. 

So in summary, fundamentally, I guess you get your levies where your manpower is most prevalent.


----------



## The Judge (Apr 18, 2019)

That's an interesting argument that peasants couldn't have afforded the accoutrements of war, nor the time to spend developing skill.  I'm not sure I buy it, though.  For centuries in England, all men were encouraged -- even at times required -- to practise archery, and skill and ability would arise from natural gifts and training rather than as a consequence of relative financial and leisure means.  Materiel in the form of good bows and other weapons must surely have been provided to an army going into war, together with any protective coverings short of full armour -- I find it hard to believe that an artisan would have bought his own bill or pike and practised with it in the hope he'd join the army at some point!  On the Mary Rose they found lots of ballock daggers which were personal items owned by the sailors, and swords by the upper classes, but there were separate inventories of the longbows and other weapons which were supplied to the ship.

I'm also not so sure that minor craftsmen were more likely to look to soldiering for money than agricultural labourers,  at least not in an English context.  Craftsmen have a job, and if they've gone through their apprenticeship they're better off than a good many.  They might struggle at times, but they've got more security and better prospects than someone who is wholly dependent on others for work on the land.  They're also likely to have a better education.  Obviously, there'd be some who weren't good at their jobs or couldn't make money due to their own circumstances rather than general economic decline, or were attracted to the dubious glamour of battle, or the thought of get-rich-quick, but I'm not so sure that would be truer of artisans than the poor sods labouring out in the fields.  Having said that a whole trade might suddenly go out of business eg home weavers superceded by technological advances.  But then, whole swathes of those living on the land would be subject to upheavals -- enclosures not only spelled the end for commoners keeping a few cows and pigs on common land, but also with large flocks of sheep in one place only one shepherd might be required as opposed to several looking after smaller flocks in several different areas.

I wonder if the issue of inheritance might come into it for those who had something to leave.  In France, as I understand it, there was no primogeniture, so the more sons a man had, the more his land was divided, becoming smaller and smaller as generations went by, and perhaps tying them to the land the more, so they kept what little they had.  (Though contrariwise, perhaps that meant they were more likely to look elsewhere for extra money on a temporary basis at least.)  If the eldest son gets everything, then the next along has to find other work -- certainly that's the case in Georgian England for the landed gentry when second and thirds sons are looking to the army/navy and the church, and in the C19th the East India Company.  It presumably played a part also in those lower down the social scale, such as tradesmen and merchants, where there isn't enough money to go around.

But I agree that for Toby it comes down to the issue of sophistication in government, mercenaries and the banking system as a whole.  The king can borrow money or can raise taxes, or both.  In England the Jews were probably a good source of revenue on both counts until they were exiled.


EDIT: took too long to think about this and type it, so VB leapt in ahead of me


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 18, 2019)

The Judge said:


> That's an interesting argument that peasants couldn't have afforded the accoutrements of war, nor the time to spend developing skill.  I'm not sure I buy it, though.  For centuries in England, all men were encouraged -- even at times required -- to practise archery, and skill and ability would arise from natural gifts and training rather than as a consequence of relative financial and leisure means.  Materiel in the form of good bows and other weapons must surely have been provided to an army going into war, together with any protective coverings short of full armour -- I find it hard to believe that an artisan would have bought his own bill or pike and practised with it in the hope he'd join the army at some point!  On the Mary Rose they found lots of ballock daggers which were personal items owned by the sailors, and swords by the upper classes, but there were separate inventories of the longbows and other weapons which were supplied to the ship.



I'm pretty sure in the book _The Organization of War Under Edward III, 1338-62 _that I have (somewhere in a garage in a box that I don't know where is!) H.J. Hewitt goes into _a lot _of detail of what was required and Edward had to order bows, arrows and all sorts of equipment, so I think it was expected that the king had to outfit his army and plan fully the logistics for the whole campaign. (Although of course if the men arrived with sufficiently good equipment I am sure they were allowed to take it with them. And as you stated they probably bought personal pieces like daggers and swords)


----------



## -K2- (Apr 18, 2019)

*Expecting the military experts to correct any errors following...*

I will say something else here in that 'archery' is coming up quite a bit and being a bow-hunter myself with all forms of bows.  Though "English Archer's / longbow-men" are spoke of reverently, I suspect that the lion's share of archers were simply howitzer-like equivalent artillery.  _IOW, can you draw the bow, can you point up 45-degrees, can you let go of the string and not kill yourself._ 

That said, there is also that edict (I just ran across so have *not* confirmed) by Edward III, 1363: _Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery._

That doesn't mean (though the ideal) that they become marksman.  Just simply, be able to point and shoot.

In contrast, the North American Native population would have been the exact opposite.  Most were extremely skilled in all forms of combat, weapon use and archery.

K2


----------



## The Judge (Apr 18, 2019)

I'm the complete opposite of an expert where weapons are concerned and have no personal experience of any kind, but viz-a-viz the English longbow I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as that.

Simply being able to draw the bow repeatedly, let alone shoot several arrows a minute (I have six in my head, but I've no idea where I got that from) would require extensive practice.  Butts were set up on fields outside towns/villages and almost certainly -- we're talking male pride and competitiveness here, after all -- there would be prestige attached in hitting the butts, and even prizes at festivals and the like, and derision for failure.  So all but the useless are going to learn to hit the targets over the years, even if not the bullseye.  And even if as a military leader you use your archers to pour death down on the approaching army from a distance, you'd still want them to be able to hit things they were aiming at as the other side got nearer.    

Among the Mary Rose armaments were bows which experts think would have been used to shoot some kind of fire arrows, which would presumably have been aimed at specific targets, not simply shot at random into the opposing ships' hulls, and some bowmen would have been deployed to target individuals, though lighter bows might then have been used.

So, not all marksmen of the Robin Hood legendary sort, perhaps, but not simply brute-force inepts, either.  Perhaps like C20th professional soldiers with guns -- everyone trained to a certain standard to hit the enemy, with a few deadly accurate snipers. 

Interesting point about Native American prowess. But as far as the bow is concerned, I'm assuming it wasn't simply a weapon of war, it was a tool with which to feed one's family, and accuracy could be a life-and-death matter, hence the need for marksmanship.  I can well imagine that it was the same -- and also regarding weapons of war because of the frequency of attacks from warring tribes -- in Europe in much earlier centuries.


----------



## tinkerdan (Apr 18, 2019)

You might want to look at feudalism and the relationship between Lords and vassals and their obligations and fealty. This is all prior to professional military that eventually weakened the power of the feudal lords.  The Lords had an obligation to protect their land and people and in turn those vassals were obligated to assist in military efforts to support their Lord and protector.

From there work to the shifting of power structure to the professionals and possibly taxes (against feudal lords) used to pay for that type of army.
I guess, think in terms of evolving from non-professional militia to formally organized and trained professional fighters. Somewhere halfway between you might have a mixture depending on the political structure of the kingdom.


----------



## -K2- (Apr 18, 2019)

The Judge said:


> Interesting point about Native American prowess. But as far as the bow is concerned, I'm assuming it wasn't simply a weapon of war, it was a tool with which to feed one's family, and accuracy could be a life-and-death matter, hence the need for marksmanship.  I can well imagine that it was the same -- and also regarding weapons of war because of the frequency of attacks from warring tribes -- in Europe in much earlier centuries.



That would be exactly it... hunting.  I myself, simply as a recreational sportsman even hunt pheasant and geese in flight and rabbits on the run with my recurve (everything else I'm rather conservative with regarding if/when to shoot).

However, hand-to-hand combat proficiency came from recreational sports.  Wrestling (a biggie), throwing weapons as games, etc., etc..  Early on, however, that quickly began to change due to the immigrant's tactics.  Counting coup was very real and considered more impressive than killing your enemy.  So imagine when Native American's show up for a game of tag, and instead get shot.  Same with hand to hand combat.  They were extremely skilled, yet at first didn't fight with strikes (punches and kicks) which also surprised them.  It's tough fighting savages when you're as civilized as Native American's tend to be .

Where they fell short was in the use of a firearm... Naturally, just like them with bows, most frontiersman shot well due to hunting.  Once the Indigenous Peoples acquired firearms, unlike with other weapons, they did not have the extra ammunition to practice with.  So, they turned into crude point-and-shoots at first.  Many Native firearms serving double duty as war clubs and axes.





K2


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 18, 2019)

-K2- said:


> *Expecting the military experts to correct any errors following...*
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean (though the ideal) that they become marksman.  Just simply, be able to point and shoot.



Not really a military expert, but have read a lot...

The devastating tactical use of the Longbow was to fire mass volleys up into the air, and aim for the arrow flight to fall down onto a body of soldiers. So not really using the bow as a sniper, more as an artillery barrage. 

Although I see no reason why, if enemy were to come closer, a marksman couldn't directly aim for them, but I think to try that at the start that might get a lot of the arrows stuck in the ground just ahead of the enemy.

It meant that terrain and weather could be a huge advantage - firing from the top of a hill greatly increased your range, compared to your enemy and firing into the wind, say at Towton 1461, could seriously hamper the range of your archers. 

Of course the one thing they always point out is that the bows of this time seemed to be seriously more powerful than modern bows, so the 'punch' of their arrows would have been much more devastating...but then they had to try and penetrate armour.


----------



## -K2- (Apr 18, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Not really a military expert, but have read a lot...
> 
> The devastating tactical use of the Longbow was to fire mass volleys up into the air, and aim for the arrow flight to fall down onto a body of soldiers. So not really using the bow as a sniper, more as an artillery barrage.
> 
> ...



Pretty much what I suspected, although I would argue one point.  In fact, I even use this point in my current work regarding high-velocity firearms.

Since many armies of old massed together, direct fire (vs. indirect fire like mentioned), would be equally effective I suspect in that, as long as you could get your archers to adjust their elevation, it doesn't matter if they hit the first, second or fourth row back.  They're going to hit something.  More so, I would suspect that subsequent rows behind would most likely be lighter armored, perhaps lacking shields and so on.

So, overshooting the vanguard and catching subsequent waves would be the most effective tactic... or so I would assume, considering I can oly guess.

K2


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 18, 2019)

-K2- said:


> Pretty much what I suspected, although I would argue one point.  In fact, I even use this point in my current work regarding high-velocity firearms.
> 
> Since many armies of old massed together, direct fire (vs. indirect fire like mentioned), would be equally effective I suspect in that, as long as you could get your archers to adjust their elevation, it doesn't matter if they hit the first, second or fourth row back.  They're going to hit something.  More so, I would suspect that subsequent rows behind would most likely be lighter armored, perhaps lacking shields and so on.
> 
> ...



I _think_ (not having fired an arrow or bullet in my life) that it's a bit easier to hit an area at a long distance 'by bombard'  rather than try and pick out a specific front row and persons on it. The key here is 'at long distance'. You want to try and stop a mass of enemies, you want to dissuade them from afar, well before they got close to you. I'm thinking a bit like a physicist here - I think you'll have a bit more leeway with the angle you pick to get your arrow to the area, whereas to hit a specific spot on a more flat trajectory could be harder. 

My guess is, and I bow to your much greater knowledge of firing a bow, that the effective range of a bow for hitting a singular target (say a deer) is much shorter than trying to hit a specific area (say a herd of deer, if we are taking that analogy!) It may also require less skill??? Especially if you are just aiming to fire into a mass of men. 

Also, I guess that a lot of warriors did not really have too much armour to protect against weapons from directly above - sure helmets, but generally they tried to protect face-to-face with shields and body armour on the horizontal. 

When it comes to firearms...for a long time they were just not that accurate at all, so volley fire was used to try and maximise lead shot/bullets onto a target

Anyway, we seem to be going really OT


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 18, 2019)

As said, the longbow was used in mainly in massed volleys, but that doesn't mean the bowmen couldn't aim accurately in other situations. Doesn't mean they could either - I don't know a huge amount about the subject. I suspect however, given how long they spent using the weapons and that most of the soldiers would be professionals, most of the best archers were fairly accurate. As for rate of fire - just got my copy of Barker's _Agincourt _open and she gives the numbers as 10 arrows per minute as an absolute minimum demanded, 15 as what a good archer could do, and 20 as the absolute high point.

And since its open, in terms of Toby's thing about payment - 

"The wages for the campaign were to be paid quarterly in advance" - so a lot of gold, but not all the gold at once

Re Social Origins of the Medieval Soldier:

"The prospect of earning 6d a day was also attractive to those of higher social rank. Many of Henry V’s archers were yeomen, farmers and minor landholders with incomes in the region of £5 a year, who could afford to equip themselves with a horse and basic armour; some were even younger brothers or sons of gentry whose family purse was not deep enough to provide the king’s host with more than one man-at-arms. For them, military service in France offered the prospect of advancement, and a number of men who were initially recruited as archers would later be found serving as men-at-arms."

Note especially the part about the horse. The vast majority of archers in the Agincourt campaign were mounted when not fighting, which meant they needed to be able to afford a horse (even if they only cost £1 by the values of the time), and needed to be able ride the thing. In both cases, that means money and leisure time - something beyond the resources of the average peasant (although having googled working hours of a medieval peasant they may have had more spare time than I thought).

We also know that some of the archers were probably everyday members of noble households ("From their names, which sometimes occur elsewhere in the accounts in a professional capacity, one can guess that many of this last group were members of the earl’s household: William Coke (the cook), Nicholas Armourer, William Sadelyler, John Foteman, John Fysshelake. One archer is even specifically referred to as a tentmaker.")

Now this is one specific bit of a very large period and I'm not saying that there were no peasants or escaped serfs or what not in Henry's army. But in this case at least, this is what at least one historian says. The whys of this are speculation, but that it happened this way isn't. 

And while this is but one example, and that at the tail end of the period, I think it is one of the better ones considering Toby's talking about mercenaries (and I'm not sure mercenary captains would buy their archers bows). We're not talking about fyrds or levies or anything like that - we're talking a small class of pro soldiers.

And in terms of the broader picture - the link between resilient predominantly urban communities and good infantry in this period is a fairly common one. Vebruggen makes it, I think Contamine makes it, this paper from De Re Militari makes it. Sure, they were a fair few examples of levied infantry, but they were very rarely good. And there's a few examples of good infantry that don't fit this model, but the link is generally sound. And by and large, most commanders didn't use levies when they could. I think this one from DRM gives a good rundown of why it was never really the norm even early on (and also shows quite clearly the early existence of mercenaries - the Varangian Guard got about 135 grams of gold a month).




Venusian Broon said:


> Also, I guess that a lot of warriors did not really have too much armour to protect against weapons from directly above - sure helmets, but generally they tried to protect face-to-face with shields and body armour on the horizontal.



They'd wear helmets alright, but the big thing is that you'd want your visor down if arrows were raining and that restricted vision.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 19, 2019)

The Big Peat said:


> "The wages for the campaign were to be paid quarterly in advance" - so a lot of gold, but not all the gold at once


Yep makes sense! Same as you don't get all monies for a contract upfront today....



The Big Peat said:


> Re Social Origins of the Medieval Soldier:
> 
> "The prospect of earning 6d a day was also attractive to those of higher social rank. Many of Henry V’s archers were yeomen, farmers and minor landholders with incomes in the region of £5 a year, who could afford to equip themselves with a horse and basic armour; some were even younger brothers or sons of gentry whose family purse was not deep enough to provide the king’s host with more than one man-at-arms. For them, military service in France offered the prospect of advancement, and a number of men who were initially recruited as archers would later be found serving as men-at-arms."
> 
> Note especially the part about the horse. The vast majority of archers in the Agincourt campaign were mounted when not fighting, which meant they needed to be able to afford a horse (even if they only cost £1 by the values of the time), and needed to be able ride the thing. In both cases, that means money and leisure time - something beyond the resources of the average peasant (although having googled working hours of a medieval peasant they may have had more spare time than I thought).



Well, here's the thing. The Agincourt campaign was an aggressive campaign for Henry V to gain the French throne. Can that be said about all the various campaigns of the English kings? I don't know.  Plus farmers and minor landholders aren't craftsmen, could be very "peasant-y" if you look at it from certain angles (See below...) . 




The Big Peat said:


> We also know that some of the archers were probably everyday members of noble households ("From their names, which sometimes occur elsewhere in the accounts in a professional capacity, one can guess that many of this last group were members of the earl’s household: William Coke (the cook), Nicholas Armourer, William Sadelyler, John Foteman, John Fysshelake. One archer is even specifically referred to as a tentmaker.")



Yeomen, I believe, were originally bowmen that were retainers in noble courts. Should have been really good bowmen, I think, 'cause they should have been bowmen and nothing else.



The Big Peat said:


> Now this is one specific bit of a very large period and I'm not saying that there were no peasants or escaped serfs or what not in Henry's army. But in this case at least, this is what at least one historian says. The whys of this are speculation, but that it happened this way isn't.



I suppose it depends on your definition of 'peasant'. You might be thinking that peasant  is the 'lowest of the low' but I believe there was a great deal of different levels of peasant. And some could be quite rich., So, a farmer could easily be lumped into that class. And I'd guess that plenty of the noble knights in Henry's army would have deemed a great deal of the army with them as peasants (or some other label that is close to that definition!)



The Big Peat said:


> (and I'm not sure mercenary captains would buy their archers bows).



Erm, why wouldn't the contract also involve them replacing wear and tear? I.e. the expense of maintaining good weapons? A mercenary unit that required that soldiers applying to their unit had to buy and maintain their weapons would drive away recruits I feel!



The Big Peat said:


> And in terms of the broader picture - the link between resilient predominantly urban communities and good infantry in this period is a fairly common one. Vebruggen makes it, I think Contamine makes it, this paper from De Re Militari makes it. Sure, they were a fair few examples of levied infantry, but they were very rarely good. And there's a few examples of good infantry that don't fit this model, but the link is generally sound. And by and large, most commanders didn't use levies when they could. I think this one from DRM gives a good rundown of why it was never really the norm even early on (and also shows quite clearly the early existence of mercenaries - the Varangian Guard got about 135 grams of gold a month).



So this is a big topic....essentially I'd argue that it's nothing to do with urban communities providing troops, in Europe armies shrank from Late Roman times, partly because there wasn't massive armies invading and a number of other issues, and therefore they could rely much more just on retinues and mercenaries. Interestingly I think DRM seems to argue what I pondered before: "_More important, I think, is the evidence which suggests that a distinction was made between service in defence of the country and service on offensive campaigns_" i.e. you try and get your best for a pillage or invasion, but if someone invades you...you get everyone involved. 

Then the same paper states "_At their best, however, the* civic* militias of urban Europe were part-time fighting men. Their tactical skills were correspondingly limited_." 

Further more:

_"In northern Wales and the border counties of England, boys began learning to use the bow almost as soon as they could walk. The genetours of the Iberian Peninsula and the stradiots of the Balkans *might be part-time laborers or farmers*, but they drew much of their personal identity, and an increasing amount of their civil status, from their military proficiency."_

Very good article, the DRM one, reading through it all BTW. Very thought provoking!


.


----------



## Mirannan (Apr 19, 2019)

I think some thought ought to be given to the problem of logistics - paying for, and transporting, all the things required for an army. The biggest part being rations, probably, but I imagine having thousands of arrows ready for those barrages would also be a strain.


----------



## sknox (Apr 19, 2019)

This has all been very good coverage, complete with citing sources (the historian in me smiles). I can think of a couple of aspects to add. One would be to look at crusader armies. We have some very good studies of those, and a good many of the armies were not raised by kings, so that would give a different perspective.

Somewhat related, kings did not generally directly raise and pay for an army. Instead, they had any number of "men" (I resist using the term feudalism) who in turn could raise knights and men-at-arms. So, a king would put out a call to assemble on such a date in such a place and pretty much hope everyone showed up (they rarely did). Among those would be his direct retainers plus any mercenaries he'd hired (mainly by borrowing the money). But a large chunk, even most, of the army would be men raised not by the king but by various counts, earls, margraves, dukes, and the rest.  I realize that just sort of punts the question downfield a bit, but it is worth noting that the king wasn't directly paying, always.

Which circles me back to the crusades. We have fairly detailed information about the Seventh Crusade, led by King Louis IX of France. Joinville tells of multiple cases where the various nobles along on the expedition eventually ran out of funds--Louis was in the Holy Land for four years--and the king covered for them.

Great thread, folks. Logistics are always worth a look!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 19, 2019)

Toby Frost said:


> Kings in fantasy novels tend to be able to recruit soldiers or hire them without much difficulty. In Renaissance Italy and Germany, the mercenary system was very well-organised, and the banking system was getting going, so I find it hard to believe that everything was done by handing over huge bags of coins.
> 
> In short, if a king wanted to hire a group of mercenaries, would that literally involve chests full of gold, or would some more sophisticated system of promises and debt be used?  Thanks!



There's always the possibility of bank drafts, promissory notes, gifts in kind (not least lands and titles for the leaders with the associated taxes). Or even the promise of easy plunder. Possibly a mix of everything.

15th century Italy is a bit of an anomaly because you have an unusual mix of elements, not least soldiers of fortune left over the Hundred Years war, very powerful and rich city states in competition with each other.

If you want to look deeper into the period, Hawkwood: Diabolical Englishman eBook: Frances Stonor Saunders: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store  tells the story of an Englishman who ended up leading mercenary bands in Italy, and might provide useful information.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 19, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Well, here's the thing. The Agincourt campaign was an aggressive campaign for Henry V to gain the French throne. Can that be said about all the various campaigns of the English kings? I don't know.  Plus farmers and minor landholders aren't craftsmen, could be very "peasant-y" if you look at it from certain angles (See below...) .



The campaigns of the English medieval kings post-defeat of the Vikings can be broadly broken down into aggressive campaigns of foreign conquest (or defence of said foreign parts) and civil war. Its very rare that they fought other major invading armies (particularly post Anglo-Saxon) and most of the time that was linked to civil wars anyway. I think the Scottish invasion that ended at Neville's Cross might be the only non-civil war linked major invasion to occur in this period.

Alas, I sacrificed my War of the Roses collection when I moved, but playing compare the difference between that and Agincourt would be fascinating - and then again with that and the Great Anarchy.



> Yeomen, I believe, were originally bowmen that were retainers in noble courts. Should have been really good bowmen, I think, 'cause they should have been bowmen and nothing else.



Their surnames state pretty clearly that these men weren't bowmen and nothing else; also, I haven't heard that before and Wiki (fwiw) says otherwise - "In early recorded uses, a yeoman was an attendant in a noble household "



> I suppose it depends on your definition of 'peasant'. You might be thinking that peasant  is the 'lowest of the low' but I believe there was a great deal of different levels of peasant. And some could be quite rich., So, a farmer could easily be lumped into that class. And I'd guess that plenty of the noble knights in Henry's army would have deemed a great deal of the army with them as peasants (or some other label that is close to that definition!)



I was dealing mainly with the lowest of the low type peasant, yes. People who can't pay other people to labour in the field for them. Which is a nebulous concept at farmer, but not at minor landholder imo although I'll freely admit that when we get into the social history side I start to get out of my depth. However, since the historian in question I'm quoting put farmers directly after and linked to higher social rank, I'm going to go with them being of a slightly higher rank than ye average peasant.

And while there would have been a certain amount of snootiness on the nobles' parts, yes, in this part of the period the lines start to get blurred and there is a lower gentry/middle class in evidence. The standard definition of mounted armoured warrior in Henry's army was Man At Arms, not knight, because most of them weren't knights. Scrope brought 4 knights and 26 esquires. And sure, not everyone could be a esquire either, but things are clearly getting a little wobbly (not to mention that as already quoted, there were family members of esquires serving as archers).



> Erm, why wouldn't the contract also involve them replacing wear and tear? I.e. the expense of maintaining good weapons? A mercenary unit that required that soldiers applying to their unit had to buy and maintain their weapons would drive away recruits I feel!



Replacing wear and tear and buying new equipment when they join are two different things. I don't know for sure how this part of it worked but its worth looking at.



> So this is a big topic....essentially I'd argue that it's nothing to do with urban communities providing troops, in Europe armies shrank from Late Roman times, partly because there wasn't massive armies invading and a number of other issues, and therefore they could rely much more just on retinues and mercenaries. Interestingly I think DRM seems to argue what I pondered before: "_More important, I think, is the evidence which suggests that a distinction was made between service in defence of the country and service on offensive campaigns_" i.e. you try and get your best for a pillage or invasion, but if someone invades you...you get everyone involved.
> 
> Then the same paper states "_At their best, however, the* civic* militias of urban Europe were part-time fighting men. Their tactical skills were correspondingly limited_."
> 
> ...



The Stradiots and Jinetes were both horsemen and therefore outside of the remit of what I'm saying 

But yes, you can see communities other than predominantly urban ones producing the level of social cohesion needed to overcome knights in the middle ages. That doesn't change the fact that it was Flanders and Northern Italy (i.e. high level of urbanisation) that did it first. Maybe the causation is off but that is definitely how it went down.

And, limited or not, the best of them were able to take knights.

Finally, even when invaded, most armies still didn't call in mass levies of peasants. It happened in places, in periods, but pretty much every place you have a decent pool of professional soldiers, feeding levies are more trouble than they're worth. And even what we do think of levies, things like the Fyrd, were generally organised in such a way to try and a few good fighting men rather than a ton of crap ones.


----------



## Danny McG (May 4, 2019)

The Judge said:


> I'm the complete opposite of an expert where weapons are concerned and have no personal experience of any kind, but viz-a-viz the English longbow I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as that.
> 
> Simply being able to draw the bow repeatedly, let alone shoot several arrows a minute (I have six in my head, but I've no idea where I got that from) would require extensive practice.  Butts were set up on fields outside towns/villages and almost certainly -- we're talking male pride and competitiveness here, after all -- there would be prestige attached in hitting the butts, and even prizes at festivals and the like, and derision for failure.  So all but the useless are going to learn to hit the targets over the years, even if not the bullseye.  And even if as a military leader you use your archers to pour death down on the approaching army from a distance, you'd still want them to be able to hit things they were aiming at as the other side got nearer.
> 
> ...


The crossbow sword, that's what you need


----------



## thaddeus6th (May 4, 2019)

Ages ago on Twitter, I saw a fantastic picture of a meat cleaver. Which was also a pistol. And had a calendar of saints' days engraved into it.

For when you need your butchery, firearms, and holy duties in one handy tool.


----------



## MikeAnderson (May 27, 2019)

Peasants and conscripts are never good options as soldiers. Poorly trained, ill-equipped, and lack the spirit and motivation. Plus, most lords and kings rightfully feared a full scale revolt from these quasi slave troops. Look what happened to Russia in WW1. The Czar and the landed nobles conscripted millions of warm bodies with little training and motivation, and the casualties piled up. The only thing slave soldiers got the Romanovs was one last family photo in the basement.

America, too, suffered a similar problem in Vietnam. You had the ranks filled with barely legal kids with mediocre martial training and little motivation to fight this conflict besides not getting shot up. 

Soldiers are like toilet paper and cars: you get what you pay for.


----------



## thaddeus6th (May 28, 2019)

Yes and no.

The archers of Henry V had far less costly arms and armour (not the same as wages, but still a cost) than French knights. Agincourt then proved spending the most doesn't mean you necessarily have the most effective military equipment.


----------



## sknox (May 28, 2019)

There are so many variables in an individual battle--topography, weather, leadership, chance, as well as training or weaponry. It is, imho, a mistake to isolate one or two as being decisive. In any case, we appear to have wandered far from the original post (the responses to which were very interesting).


----------



## Toby Frost (May 28, 2019)

I agree. My original question really boiled down to "Could someone just steal all the money used to pay the army?" I think the answer is probably "no", but the loss of a chunk of money (a wagon containing coins, say) could be possible. Of course, getting the money away would be a problem, but that's another story.

In practical terms, the question is surely "Could this be made to work in a story?" and I think it just about could. The aim is often not so much absolute realism as not breaking the illusion of credibility for the reader, and I think this occasion would work.


----------



## sknox (May 28, 2019)

>Could someone just steal all the money used to pay the army? 

More often it was a case of not having the money to deliver in the first place. There were also cases of plunder that ought to have been shipped back to the capital or king, but somehow disappeared. And, much later, we get payroll robberies all over the place in the 19thc.

It totally could work. My skepticism might kick in if it were presented as if the army only got paid once. Most times--and I'm thoroughly medieval Europe here--an army was paid in part through plunder and through taking profits from the battlefield (ransom). By the late MA we see some provisions for a per diem sort of arrangement, but I can't think of a case where we know exactly how that payment happened. If the army were in foreign territory, I'd expect the payment would happen once back home; or, one payment up front with the balance to be paid on return. 

The lord would very likely have money with him, though; that money would be for ongoing expenses. I can think of examples here from the Crusades. Stealing that would create a serious problem, though the army could probably operate on credit for a while. But if the lord knew he'd been robbed, he'd for sure go after the thieves, once military operations were over.


----------



## thaddeus6th (May 29, 2019)

On the specific stealing point, one of (the?) biggest, ahem, acquisitions in history was committed by Quintus Servilius Caepio who acquired a not inconsiderable sum in gold. 

"The riches of Tolosa were shipped back to Rome, but only the silver made it; the gold was stolen by a band of marauders, who were believed to have been hired by Caepio himself. The Gold of Tolosa was never found, and was said to have been passed all the way down to the last heir of the Servilii Caepiones, Marcus Junius Brutus. "

Quintus Servilius Caepio - Wikipedia


----------



## sknox (May 29, 2019)

Yup. Covered nicely by Colleen McCullough in her Masters of Rome series. Can't recall in which volume.

Also, somewhat relevant, I'm reading a medieval maritime history, specifically about the naval aspect of the Norman invasion of England. There I read that the English had a system by which each shire provided the funds for the men that shire levied. So, it would have been several smaller chests of coin (and letters of authorization), rather than one big one, for the Saxons. There was no mention of funding on the Norman side, but the Conqueror famously sat for weeks with his entire army before sailing. Thousands of men and horses, and it's said that William paid for provisions out of his own pocket, so he must have had a fair bit of coin.

Another fun place for stealing silver would be ransom payments. In the case of paying off Viking invaders, this allegedly came to thousands of pounds in silver. What a great opportunity to raise a ruckus, to have the Viking pay-off money stolen on the way to Fiercebeard Killemall!


----------



## Montero (May 29, 2019)

In a text I read a while back, regarding Yoeman - there was an Elizabethan law passed, saying all smallholdings had to be a minimum of 8 acres - because that was the minimum size that would support a family, and had produced so many good long bowmen - so well fed, self-reliant and fit.

In Barbara Hambly Ladies of Madrigyn, there is a nice wrinkle on mercenaries getting paid - the silver content of the coins was specified in the contract, and trying to pass off adulterated coins could result in a tribunal judged by neighbouring city states.

End of English Civil War, Parliamentary Army wouldn't go home until they'd been paid - not sure they ever did get paid in full.


----------



## thaddeus6th (May 30, 2019)

Montero, that raises another good point which is that things changed a lot over time.

A thousand years ago, Saxon and Viking leaders had housecarls who were regularly rewarded with gifts and formed a core of professional soldiers. Later, fealty and feudal armies came in (Alfred's burh system was an interesting development too). But feudal service could be avoided by paying scutage (shield money, a tax to pay for mercenaries rather than serving in person and something much abused by King John). A couple of centuries later feudal armies declined and were often replaced with mostly mercenary troops, leading to indentured service (indenture at this time was a good thing because it meant a contract specifying what the leader would pay and how compensation for war horses [very expensive] would be handled). 

Even using history as a firm guide, there's a lot of scope for different systems in fantasy.


----------

