Other prices for comparison: (d = pence for some reason) 12d = 1s, 20s = £1 London, late 14h century 4 gallons of ale - 1d 1 gallon best Kent ale - 2d Best leg of pork - 3d Duck or hen - 5d Best goose - 6d or 7d roast Sugar 8 - 18d per lb Orange conserve - 36d per lb Licorice - 1d per lb 2 cups of wine - 1 - 2d Gascony wine - 3-4 d per gallon Candles - 2d per lb Land rent - 1-2d per acre 1 days's wages 1361-70 Carpenter - 4.5 d Labourer - 3.5 d Mason - 6d Table and pair of trestles - 1s (12d) Feather bed - 5-13s Pair of sheets - 4s Brass pot - 2-13s Two hawks and a falcon - £10 (200s) Breastplate and backplate - £3 Shield - 18s Helmet - £2 Cheapest sword - 6d Decent sword - 2s Source: The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England by Ian Mortimer
Incidentally, the reason why "pence" is noted as "d" is that the Latin abbreviations of equivalent coins were used at the time: penny (d) - denarius shilling (s) - solidus pound (£, L, cf. lb for the mass unit) - libra
What about social reasons? People who are soldier's because of loyalty and obligation to a region, a lord, family? Perhaps being a soldier increased social/class mobility? Coming back to the loyalty aspect: tribalism is always a huge drive for people to do things- regional, religious, my group vs your group etc. Was the money really that big a factor?
Spearmen 2 pence pr. day Foot Archers 3 pence pr. day Mounted archers 6 pence pr. day Hobelars 6 pence pr. day Mounted sergeants 1 shilling pr. day (12 pence) Knight bachelor 2 shillings pr. day (24 pence) Knight banneret 4 shillings pr. day (48 pence)
Here is some additional information. The rates in 1351 in France. Armour bearer or attendant 2.5 sous pr. day Infantryman 3 sous pr. day Valet 5 sous pr. day Squire 10 sous pr. day Knight bachelor 20 sous pr. day Knight banneret 40 sous pr. day. In this case sous is used as a word simply for money, and it's equivalent to deniers tournois, penny or franc after 1360. Here is a list from The Abbeville ordinance: 31 July 1471 Conducteur 100 francs (leader of 100 men-at-arms) Disenier 24 francs (leader of 10 men-at-arms) Men-at-arms 15 francs Mounted archer 5 francs Handgunner 4 francs Crossbowman 4 francs Pikeman 2 patars But what I'm actually interested in is the rate for _Coustillier_ /Gros Varlet/Valets Armés etc. The man-at-arms, Squire or Knight payed them from their own pockets, so it's kinda unclear what the pay was. It probably changed with the status of the man-at-arms and the equipment of the varlet. I'm also interested in the differences between a _Lance à cheval_ and a _Lance à pied_ in terms of pay. Because of the introduction of cheep plate armour in the late 14th century and the increasing demand for dismounted men-at-arms, the distinction between Knight and the lower-status Mounted Sergeant disappeared (among other reasons). Mail armour was still in circulation and was often handed down to Gros Valets and Coustilliers, and they assumed the Sergeants role on the battlefield. Sergeants on the other hand became men-at-arms without a coat-of-arms, or they became Squires, a title in its own right by the mid 1300s. By 1413 the title Gentleman became common in England. Anyone from the Gentry who didn't inherit his father's coat-of-arms, (because he was not officially a Squire (the title, not the apprentice) and the title passed on to the eldest son only) could assume this title. These men were often trained in fighting and had access to plate armour of munition quality. If the norm was to dismount before combat, they in fact did not have a need for an armoured horse. It's also mentioned that when archers had acquired enough armour they were promoted to Foot Laces, the equivalent to a _Lance à pied_ . Did these men get a Mounted Sergeant's pay? 12 pence? Was the pay for a Squire, Gentleman and _Lance à pied_ /Foot lancer the same, or did the Squire and Gentleman receive more than the Foot lancer because they knew how to fight on horseback too, but only lacked the proper number of armoured horses or an armoured horse at all?
At University I once transcribed a court order from old German (around the year 1500) ... :) I remember it quite well because I found it a little funny: A drunken man beat up a priest because he was sleeping off his hangover in a church on Sunday morning and was disrupted by the start of prayer. He was sentenced to pay 5 Taler (about 20 weeks of a mansons pay) as retribution.
2d per day = 6 days work to buy a crossbow UK median daily wage very approx £80ish x 6 days = £480 for a crossbow Sounds about right. Ill let Tod know he's on medieval wages
Common people in middle agas were not badly treated. Only after the industrial revolution, many people lost their land and became proletariat labors and working 12 hours a day for much less. The situation only recovered in the late 20th century in developed nations.
Ok let me put this in other terms: SIG Sauer 225, a professional weapon, is listed on their home page costing 1032$, so just around 900€ (08.12.18). That's half a month's net pay, or a third gross, so 10-15 days of work. The ammo is a lot cheaper, and it's easier to maintain than a crossbow, but I'm getting paid less than my medieval counterpart relative to my equipment...
So a medieval archer had to work 4 days to afford a crossbow. I have to work 3-5 days to earn enough to buy a decent crossbow, at about $100 a day, before taxes. And that's not even taking into account living expenses such as food and lodging. Seems legit.
Horse Prices Destrier (Biggest war horse) - £50-£100 Palfrey (Everyday riding horse) - £10-£50 Rouncey (Less well bred riding horse for a squire) - £5-£10 Hackney (For lesser servants) - £3 Packhorse - 7s Carthorse - 2s 6d I'm not sure what year this is, which makes a huge difference. A horse might have cost 6 or 8 times less after the plague, due to deflation caused by everyone dying.
Horses prices remained relatively stable since raising a Destrier was a huge task that required a lot of labour- the increase in supply of Destriers from the dying was more than offset by the increase in labour cost to train and maintain Destriers. There are letters of people complaining that their valets and servants are running away due to better paying jobs and the nobles are being forced to do the menial jobs of mucking stables and washing the horses down after training.
I looked into this as well and what I noticed is that soldiers operating missile weapons such as bows and crossbows were paid more than the common foot soldier right across Europe and across the centuries. This even applied when guns came into play and they were paid more than pike soldiers. The big reversal only occurred in the late 16th century when pikemen started getting paid more than musketeers/arquebuseers. Other than that for people who are interested in campaigns I can recommend primary sources like: Memoirs of Blaise de Monluc Biography of Chevalier Bayard (written by someone close to him) Biography of Pero Nino (written by his 'squire') Froissart's Chronicle
the cost of a horse then really makes me think i am getting robbed blind by merchants in mount and blade when i sell captured horses...... the cost to sell a horse is ridiculously cheap
It's a smart system. When you hire people under these conditions and the big pay out is only at the end of the campaign you are saving a lot of money on all the guys who died in battle (or more likely of cholera or similar diseases).
Levied or 'mustered' soldiers gathered by commission of array tend to be local militias to deal with immediate threats during the "100 years war", who bought their own equipment and then bought 'to spec' by the county sheriffs office armoury. See the Bridport Muster (1320 and 1457). Later in the domestic 'Wars of The Roses these arrayed soldiers would often find themselves in the larger campaign not just for political allegiances but for geographical ones too. Matt a video on the household structure and indenture would be cool. The indenture system (at least later on in the 15th century, my particular area of study) means that you often follow your lord or patron to war and the resulting loot is a bonus. Esquires on the Agincourt campaign were required in their contract to bring along an average of 3 to 6 archers, for whom they (the esquires) were responsible that they were equipped to a sufficient level for service. These would then be banded up in to companies and assigned to a commander. Later during the height of the WotR, for the Barnet campaign the Paston brothers (John I & John II) took with them 6 members of their household as a retinue. At the siege of Caister castle two of John II's men were killed in the fighting. There was no opportunity for booty from a campaign then. In fact to letters to his mother, John II complains of want of funds for wages or his troops despite their loyalty, would not sign on again for another year. So I think, especially as we grind on toward the 15th century, an element of the social structure comes in to effect. You follow your lord or patron ino whatever military endeavours they set themselves upon. the household by then was not just a way of earning some keep, it was often an extended family unit (see C.M Woolgar's The Great Medieval Household). Also in the lead up to the bigger campaigns when arrays were used, ostracisation from the community could be a driving matter in turning up for inspection (the country records however show there was a wide spectrum when it comes to this. Some show many willing men turning up, while Havering in essex sent only a few with many weak and infirm, so that they didn't loose their best labour to war for harvest time). So as well as loot, I think society and the way people functioned within it, especially in the 15th century, was also a key driving force in why people fought.
The idea of dieing for vague principles like nationality and patriotism is a recent phenomenon. War is about getting rich at the expense of the enemy (whom ever that might be) and young men are always attracted to the idea of getting rich fast.
Mount and Blade is based off _something_... Other than the fictional land and states, it is based on a generalized version of medieval Europe. Details such as the pay are all but fictional. (Though it's as good as impossible to put an actual estimation on the period. Seeing both plate and mail armour is used.)
Several reasons. Some armour was black (or rather, unpolished). Some was deliberately coloured by heat treatment or paint. And sometimes it is because the manuscript used silver foil and that has gone black with age.
I thought they were often equipped with lances? (Which doesn’t mean they didn’t dismount to fight sometimes, but suggests they were more than ‘mounted infantry’.) The impression I’d always had was of a light cavalry force, good for scouting skirmishing harassing etc... the kind of force that’s effective and easy to raise in a country where hunting is popular and the main military threat comes from reiving and cattle raids and things.
@@Alefiend Yes, almost all mounted men in the later eras 'could' fight as very light/disordered cavalry but they really only functioned well on raids or to confuse the enemy on cavalry numbers and didn't train in cavalry manoeuvres or how to make coordinated charges which mean they would be wrecked by regular men-at-arms and even worse by well-equipped knights trained from boyhood. The main role was to move quickly on raids and in support of garrisons or foragers to arrive to the site of a battle quickly enough to make a difference.
To give an example of how much money was up for grabs in medieval warfare, look at the ransoms paid to English knights and men-at-arms after the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. There were so many prisoners taken, that many of the poorer ones were released after swearing an oath never to take up arms against the English again. I've seen various figures of the ransoms paid over the following years to secure the release of those captured, but if you include the ransom of King Jean II (also captured at Poitiers), estimates generally are over $1 trillion in today's money. If you exclude the King and his sons, the ransoms still total over $300 million in today's value.
interesting enough, this kind of 'pay by loot' system of medieval armies is really common nowadays - taking necessary precautions into account, obviously - to many irregular guerrilla forces. naturally loot wasn't exactly criminalized back then, but if we can put aside the legal argument for a second, we can easily see some irregular, paramilitary forces today paying their entire campaigns by looting, extorsion, kidnapping, smuggling, etc. similarly, fighting bands are raised by strongmen With enough leadership and Charisma within the community, rather than a standardized and centralized recruitment programme. I'm not saying we are about to start building trebuchets and performing funny dancing parties inside castle halls, but we Java some outstanding similarities between post cold-war non-state 'armies' and medieval ones, structurally and economically speaking.
I'd love a full video as to why exactly the English preferred to dismount and fight on foot. You briefly cover experience fighting the Welsh archers and Scottish schiltrons but not much detail beyond that. It's a historical fact I see repeated SO often when reading about English military history but I've never actually had the reasoning behind it explained other than "because they're English and that's what the English liked to do".
Alex Hutchins Yeah and maybe if they hadn't drawn that faulty conclusion, they wouldn't have lost the Hundred Years' War. Which so many people seem to forget because they're too busy telling themselves the story of how they won a battle at Agincourt for the 17-millionth time...
I don't think getting horses across water was the reason. They were capable of that and also they could have bought them from allied territory in France. They had to have the horses with them or they wouldn't qualify as men-at-arms etc and get paid. They just dismounted to fight the battle then mounted to pursue the fleeing enemy. Probably fought mounted in skirmishes sometimes too.
brotomann - I could speculate that the art of horse cavalry is a very difficult martial skill, especially besides controlling the horse and holding a lance while charging at reckless speed, Britain being an island with constant damp weather muddying the ground doesn't encourage fine equestrian training.
On sheaves of bolts. Modern arrows can be quite expensive. Even the non-customized arrows that have to be cut down to your draw and fletched, before points or broadheads are bought. I did a quick google search, opening the first windows to each category of arrows and then bows for sale, and found this: On Pape's Archery Unlimited, arrows started at $67.00 a dozen, going up to $187.00 a dozen, all "build your own". On Cabella's under the Diamond Archery brand, bows started at $300.00 and went to $700.00. Now, relatively speaking, I'm fairly sure medieval arrows weren't as expensive as modern ones, but given the amounts you would need for a campaign, it's easy to see the difference in relative expense (bows to arrows or bolts). Perhaps a sheaf was a gross (144)? Nope, it was 24. (though I imagine it was more often than not a bit of an arbitrary measurement) 1786, Francis Grose, A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons, page 34: Arrows were anciently made of reeds, afterwards of cornel wood, and occasionally of every species of wood: but according to Roger Ascham, ash was best; arrows were reckoned by sheaves, a sheaf consisted of twenty-four arrows.
I am pretty sure that medieval arrows were expensive mainly mecause it is really time consuming to produce one. Think about it, it's not just the arrowhead. The shaft has to be of proper thickness, it has to be straight and smooth, the feathering is glued and tied up. So if we have about 24 arrows or bolts per sheaf, we are talking about several working days and several people making them. Even if the makers would be paid as little as foot spearman or foot archer, the price would be quite substantial.
Looting was common for centuries afterwards, even (possibly an exceptional circumstance) at the sack of Peking in the Boxer campaign. And … “And one of Wellinton's Generals, Maj.Gen Frederick Philipse Robinson, who served in the Peninsular 1812-1814, wrote in 1813: “... wherever we move devastation marks our steps; the Portuguese are an army of thieves, the Spaniards have no feeling for their countrymen and our soldiers would be worse than either were it not for the severe discipline. “This severe discipline was the strict punishment of what was becoming known as 'looting', from the Hindustani word lut, to rob, since it was in India that it flourished in the first half of the 19th Century.” -- www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_loot1.htm (notes to poem “Loot”).
Yep, loot and ransom could make you rich. Could cause problems as soldiers stopped to loot the dead and dieing. To some extent the system continued, I think, to right before WWI. Specifically in the RN with prize money.
I would actually really like a video where you suggested more books we might pick up to learn about different points in military history. If you know of a few, that is. It’s hard to figure out where the credible sources are.
matt, if the englishmen's arrows were provided by the ruler, which means standardized to a certain degree, does that means that the archers need to provide a SUITABLE bow with matching poundage for the arrow's spine?
It's a good question, but my understanding is that with high poundage warbows and 1/2 inch thick arrows, spine just doesn't matter much. The bows from the Mary Rose all seem to be between 120-180lbs draw weight and the arrows do vary, but seem mostly standardised.
More videos like this please! It helps me to recreate how things worked back in the time and give me a general idea of medieval Europe world. And that's great!
If we say that an M4 (which costs the US government roughly $650) is a cost equivalent to the crossbows the average US infantryman, who makes roughly $68 a day, is making FAR less relative to his medieval counterpart.
Well a m4 is pritty complex...a few boxes of rounds is prob better estimate 1 qviver of bolts cost 16d aka 8 days of work lets equal that to 1000 bullets (you use alot more ammunition now). No idea what US gov pay for bullets but found on some sites 1000 bullets is about 200 $ witch meens 3.125 days.
The M4 is much more sophisticated than a crossbow, though. You can make a decent crossbow with hand tools if you know how, while an AR-15 upper receiver is precisely milled out of aluminum and is something even a lot of modern gunsmiths can't make.
But the modern infantryman has year-round living quarters, medical care, and a retirement funded by the government. Medieval era infantrymen were more like modern contractors- show up and get paid well for a certain job but everything else is on you with no further obligations by the government.
4:40 Well it seems a lot of them also either stayed or came back, because Bordeaux is full of pubs staffed by English people these days :D When I did my semester abroad there and after 6-8 weeks we couldn't stand to see any more wine, we spent most evenings either at the "HMS Victory" or the "Houses of Parliament" and I genuinely think all the people working there were English, at least all I spoke to. Very nice video, thanks :)
Yes but remember with a warhorse and armor as well as a rifle you tend to get what you pay for. There really isn't THAT much of a difference between the greatest sword ever made and the one daddy bought you when you went off and joined the army.
brotherandythesage That really isn't true. There is a world of difference between a cheap sword and a well made, expensive sword. The quality of steel, protection offered by the hand guard style, hand guard material, weight distribution, grip quality etc. The differences between a cheap sword that "daddy bought you" and an expensive sword made by a skilled blade smith could very easily mean the difference between having your hand/fingers cut off vs a blade sliding harmlessly off your guard.
I did state a sword for war so not wall hangers. The "sword" you're describing sounds like a modern "replica" decorative sword and not a sword for combat. You test a sword before you buy it. Remember your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers depends upon your equipment. Did you not understand that? Yes a cheap theatrical sword from India which isn't a combat weapon would do the things you describe and if someone was dumb enough to use one in real life combat they deserve to be cut down. However the greatest arming sword ever made isn't capable of doing that to any inexpensive heirloom arming sword that was meant for battle.
I definitely understand some of the differences between a basic stock sword made at a journeyman level and a top of the line sword. The question I think @brotheranythesage is getting at is how often the differences are enough to change the outcome of a fight. A basic sword will wreck bodies and block incoming blows. An excellent sword still needs good technique and advantage over an opponent to exploit gaps in armor.
To put things into perspective, how much food can you buy with 2 pence in this period? I want to know how good the living standards of soldiers in this period compared to a land owning peasant.
You said that loot was distributed from the top down and not a matter of keeping what you get, but what about ransom? What if, as common foot soldier/spearman or archer were somehow fortunate to capture someone of worth/wealth and successfully managed to ransom this prisoner off, who gets the ransom money? The person that took the prisoner or is the same as loot and the King gets the ransom and lets it trickle down from him>
If my memory is right, if a common soldier ransomed a man, he'd get the ransom for himself. However if the person he captured was a noble, then he'd usually sell his hostage to another noble who'd then ransom him himself. However looking at the aftermath of certain battles, it does look like it was the king/commander who had a say on prisoner management.
First of, a common soldier had little chance to capture a nobleman (better equipment, more skills). You had to have the capital to feed and "entertain" your noble prisoner until you get the ransom (months, years). Also sending a ransom note is not easy if you are basically an illiterate peasant. So all you can do is hand him over to your lord and hope for a nice reward.
I realize that the odds of a common soldier to capture a nobleman were very high, which was why I said, ". . . somehow fortunate. . . ", in other words, if he got very lucky. While this situation is not very likely to happen, it is (theoretically possible), all it takes is to be at the right place at the right time. A noble could be momentarily distracted and/or looking the wrong way and a commoner comes up from behind and hits him in the back of the head with a club or mallet, or something similar. Or a noble on horseback gets knocked off, loses his weapon, and an enemy soldier is right there to take him prisoner while he's stunned and possibly even injured. I will concede that actually holding a noble/high born prisoner for ransom would have been more difficult for the average common soldier of the time. It probably was common practice for these prisoners to be sold off to the soldier's lord so they could take better care of the prisoner and actually write to his family for ransom. However, on campaign, an illiterate soldier could (once more, in theory) ask a monk or some camp follower who was literate, to write the ransom letter. I was wondering if there was any documentation of something of this sort happening but upon further thought I think that it's unlikely since what noble/upper class solider/knight would admit to being captured and ransomed off by some common soldier.
I imagine that in the aftermath of a battle heralds or others under a flag of truce would go back and forth to learn about the dead and captured. Also, reflect on Henry V's line in the play, "Let each man kill his prisoner." This implies the holding of prisoners was not centralised.
Horse costs also varied a lot depending on place. There are numerous period sources stating that medieval Hungary is a great places to buy horses on the cheap and in bulk. A low quality horse was affordable enough for some farmer families to own.
True- much of the price was related to the pricing of improved land and the cost of labour for raising/training the horse where the closer to steppes the prices generally decreased. France and England were relatively developed and pastures purely for horses meant the loss of some other income whereas in Hungary and eastern Poland there were available pasturelands with no people wanting to use for other types of production.
They used crossbows as currency as well quite often, and black powder weapons in the 1600's I can't get through a chapter of any Historical event without wading through sentences like "He wanted to give me 14 pistols but I would have 16" I'm not even exaggerating that was a direct quote from Donald Mcbane, he seemed to walk around with sacks of pistols, and use them as money to buy anything he wanted, girls, ale, whatever, he even traded guns for swords, and swords for guns. and everyone used them to buy beer.
Pistols are an often quoted "currency" of value that could be compared across different currencies. It's a standard value to which other currencies were "pegged" and which didn't suffer from precious metal reductions when the state needed a debt reduction or more money.
You make the point that the crossbows cost considerably more than a soldier's daily pay - but is that any different from today? I don't know what modern soldiers' pay is, or what military rifles cost, but given that a cheap semi-auto-only AR15 starts at around $500 (US) and goes up, I can't imagine soldiers today make the cost of their weapons in a day either.
scholagladiatoria Really excellent video though! I didn't know looting was such a vital part, and that explains why there was so much trouble when commanders would order troops not to do it.
E1 in the US army makes about 12-1300$ a month after taxes a bit over 300$ a week(this rapidly increases within just a couple years but we are talking about base level soldiers and even an e-4 the most common pay grade in the army makes about 4-500$ a week) an m4 carbine(currently the standard weapon at least for my m.o.s. though some use m16a4s) costs around 700$ and m16a4 is about the same. So two weeks wage for a modern soldier to purchase his weapon(ya know if that was legal and all)
I don't know this for sure, but assuming Mr. Easton is correct (a very safe bet) regarding improved late 15th/early 16th century technology that allowed for purer, more homogeneous steel to be created: esp in those days, that improved tech was all about the heat-treat. Mr. Easton touched on this, but I think it deserves to be stressed even more. Whatever the technological improvements--and I'm not well-versed enough in that period to say exactly what they were--said improvements gave the smiths the ability to create higher temperatures for longer, to regulate those temperatures more precisely, and probably to a lesser extent, to be able to quench the steel and drop it back to a proscribed temperature. That's how ore is purified, and in modern times, formulas for specific types of steels read very much like recipes, telling the foundry to (for example) bring the temp up to 2800 degrees for 35 min, then air cool to 1500 and re-fire to 3250 degrees for 48 min for an HRC (hardness) rating of 57-59, or 3960 degrees for 41 min for an HRC of 60-62; water quench both types before rolling hot, etc., etc. Very recently, like several yrs or a decade at most, Crucible Industries invented a process they call "particle metallurgy" whereby instead of being poured into billets as in the past, after steel has gone through all of its heat-treat processes, but while still in a molten state, its blasted into a jet of liquid nitrogen. This causes it to immediately cool, of course, but what's so useful about this is the rapid cooling from a liquid state means the steel hardens into tiny spheres with an unbelievably homogeneous structure at a molecular level. In other words, all the impurities are removed and what you're left with are millions of metal spheres with exactly the same latticework of iron, carbon, and whatever other elements were incorporated into that latticework through the heat treatment, like chromium, tungsten, silica, magnesium, vanadium, etc. Steel is, after all, technically a crystal, and the crystalline structure is stronger if it more uniform. The particle metallurgy process produces tiny spheres of steel with essentially identical molecular structuress; these spheres can then be melted and shaped just like a regular ingot. This process, which other foundries adopted asap because it is so clearly superior (changing the process just enough to avoid patent issues, but produce the same result) has revolutionized blade steel for high-end knives. What was considered excellent steel 15 yrs ago, like 440C, is now viewed by most in the knife industry as just barely good enough to be called "high quality steel". And with good reason, since top-of-the-line blade steels today basically double or triple 440C's edge retention and toughness, while being more corrosion-resistant and still easier to grind into blades. It's kind of ridiculous, really--the knife industry has made as much progress in blade quality in the past ten years as in about the previous 60.
There was also Skirmishing around the main set-piece battles. Militias particularly were better suited to Skirmishing to break up units, especially when you don't have enough Cavalry. (Cavalry can also be used for Skirmishing.) It's particularly useful against Massed Pikes, ever since Macedonia, and the Thracian Peltasts, because the Pikemen can't turn and reform out to the sides if flanked by lighter faster skirmishers with Javelins. (The Peltasts were used specifically for this as mercenaries by the Athenians.)
Interesting - it sounds like if you wanted better protection and also better pay, you had to get a horse? Horses were really useful and important anyway, just that the way the army sets this up is probably based on the types and numbers of troops they want. Also, seeing how long it took people to move up and how many died before they had the chance would be cool.
A "Sheaf of Arrows" was defined as the number required to fill a quiver. By 1415 this was a standardised 24 arrows - it was probably the same a century earlier.
Funnily enough, as someone who does archery, I do actually have an old certificate from my club that says I'm a competent and safe archer and therefore allowed to shoot without supervision. I'm not sure if they still do this because I did indeed get mine sometime back in the dark ages 🤣
There is an old Spanish army anthem, that translates sais "opousing pikes to horses, oposing achebuses to pikemen", that gives an idea of the basic use of the troops of footsoldiers.
Was bewildered for a moment at the 20:00 mark where you said the crossbow was "twelve pence a day". I think the weapons were purchased outright once only for the use of the king's mariners, who would be able to use them effectively without the constant practice needed by the regular archers.
Me. wow, must be so difficult to work out how much their money was worth today. Matt. So this geezer buys a horse for 40 shilli- 40 shillings?! Christ on a bike, day light bloody robbery, that. Damn thing better throw pommels too.
I kept thinking for possible alternatives for "rate of fire" for the rate at which archers loosed their arrows. To be honest with you Matt, "Rate of Release" carries some very unfortunate connotations with it.
I guess the one "copper" difference between a spear/bill/...man and a bowman pay was justified by the cost of feeding geese! More seriously awesome review and great explanations. By the way being born and living in Guyenne- Aquitaine I know that loosing our cultural and trade links - wine export for example but not only - with England was a HUGE deal 600-800 years ago.
Lately I have been thinking about my countless hours of gaming, especially MMOs and noticed a word that pops up quite often that being "Guild". With that I started to wonder what exactly is a guild and what role they served in the medieval (if they were around) to all the way through the Renaissance? Could you do a video on this, or at least an explanation here in the comments?
probably simplyfied: the guillds were associations of craftsmen that regulated the prize of the work and to some extent the quality. So each member of the guild would get paid approximately the same (according to their rank and status, of course) and the cost for the customer wouldd be standardized as well. on the other hand, by contracting members of a guild the customer knew what he got for his money.
More like a mixture of a union and a cartel. They had the monopoly. Only members of the guilds were allowed to do those jobs, to train apprentices and so on. They were the industrial complex of the medieval. In some areas (like parts of modern switzerland) the guilds were the actual goverment of the cities.
Most of the various town guilds were also part of the town militia and often fought together at least in all the European places I have read about guildsmen were often doing some martial training not only to fight for their town but there could be intense guild rivalries. Wealthier/older guildsmen would be nearly the equivalent of a knight bringing their apprentices to fight rather than squires and at least in Andalusia the town guilds were very predatory in raiding across the 'border' where the border is really hazily defined much of the time and various Lords would often pay in a protection racket sort of scheme to the local guilds who often took to raiding their neighbours when they lacked more proper enemy targets. This is essentially how the Italian communes, Swiss and Flanders composed large parts of their military was via guild organizations initially and then the town/city/state stepped in to better organize the guilds and regulate commerce so it wasn't total war which some of the guilds were happy to try and practice.
Great video! More like this, please! One question: were the levied soldiers part of the Knights' retinues/companies? From how I understand it, when a King or other high-noble decided to wage war, they would do two things: hire mercenaries (i.e. unrelated soldiers or men-at-arms) and demand service from their vassals. Knights, Nobles, and Nobles-who-were-Knights, when rendering their service, would also , along with any retainers, levy the serfs from their estates to become part of their retinue/company. Some nobles who didn't wish to fight and had enough clout to refuse would simply send their levy and some amount of money or supplies, instead. Am I right so far? So these Knights were also paid a salary on top of fighting as being their required service? Or were the Knights you described more in a mercenary arrangement (i.e. they were not vassals and simply joined up for the booty/glory). If they were vassals rendering their service, does that mean that some of the salaried soldiers you mentioned were brought in as part of the Knights' levy? If so, then who paid that salary? Their lord or the King? Thanks!
As time wore on armies became increasingly professional and less levied. Feudal service was for 40 days a year. (And some men had rights to only serve in their shire.) Once this was passed (or if you left your area of service) you were paid an agreed upon amount. During the Hundred Years' War the army was made up of mercenary companies. Soldiers signed up as a certain type of troop with their company (which tended to be made up of all one type of troop) for a set amount of pay and service time. (Very few open ended time commitments.) Mercenaries tended to be the best quality of soldier as their captains had reputations to keep and so would recruit men trained to a certain standard. In many ways soldiers were like a guild; You expected them to provide a certain level of service which meant training and equipment.
Levies are not mutually exclusive from professionalism. Levying only describes the way the soldiers are recruited (levying being conscription). Professionalism describes the quality and way of life or career for the soldiers. A levy soldier can be a professional soldier by making soldering his career, just like on the other end a mercenary or volunteer soldier might not be professional by being undisciplined, poorly trained, and/or only fighting rarely or occasionally.
But how many days did they get paid? Did they salary start on the day they went to join the camp and end the day they returned home? Or was there some unpaid time in between?
At a guess it was while on campaign, they usually weren't standing armies, so no peacetime pay as it were. In the off season you went back to farming... or whatever.
well, I watched it through Matt, but I haven't come across any chorizo. I'm not disappointed, though, it was informative as always! I especially liked the "how long is a string" idiom - I'm not a native speaker, so I'm gonna use it from now on
Not just medieval times, but loot (either goods or land or people) was the main motivator and pay of the soldiers and their leaders going from pre-history all the way until the invention of the levee en masse or general conscription in the Napoleonic era. Even then, prize ships and general looting when cities were sacked were significant. The Crimean War might be the first time soldiers could reliably be looked upon as something other than officially sanctioned bandits.
Great video. I had similar views after reading Sir Charles Oman's The Art of War in the Middle Ages (1278-1485AD). Interesting point: the mounted men-at-arms (the French started doing this too) often dismounted during large battles as you said, so the horses' main advantage was mobility for patrols, skirmishes and maneuvers before and during battles
Hi Matt, on your recommendation I got the D.A. Kinsley compilation book British Sword Fighters. I just read your forward, nad I wanted to say that I found it fascinating that Imperial era swords were often sold blunt and not sharped until it's owner was deployed. It also seemed curious to me that people would actually try to get away with using the prop swords that tailors sold alongside military uniforms. I have a soft spot for these sorts of odd cultural quirks, and was wondering if you can recommend any other sources.
Juliet Barker's Agincourt is a great book, it also goes into the entire campaign and setup to the battle, which itself is a relatively short part of the book near the end.
Juliet also does quite well in trying to make an inherently hilariously dry subject matter as the financial minutiae of Henry's campaign expenses quite interesting!
Hey Matt! Quick question: what would happen if a farmer/craftsman could not afford a spear/sword to fight for his lord/king? Another great video, thanks for everything!
A craftsman like a Blacksmith (whichever specialisation), Bowyer, Carpenter or Stonemason would be exhempt from their frontline duty. Thus they wouldn't actualt have to fight. Plus; these people were usually all but "poor". Most of them were part of the higher middle class in society (Examples of Blacksmiths even going as far as into the Royal court of Wales). So it would be unlikely that they, would be unable to afford a weapon. However, farmers and the peasantry are a different matter indeed. To my knowledge, they'd just be conscripted anyway and *my guess* would be that they'd probably have taken anything they could have when they left their home (those that weren't pressed into the army at least), so, a pitchfork or club or something. Later in their service they' most likely have been able to afford a proper weapon though. And it seems only logical to me that they'd get a proper weapon before anything else.
#scholagladiatoria 2 pens? so that is 6 day of work for crosbow? it does not seams like bad deal to me....to buy myself crosbow i need to work more than that....or...i am just living in fucked up country.....o.O
You should not compare that to an authentic medieval crossbow today. That is a niche market and therefore rather more expensive than things which are mass produced. But you can get a cheap modern crossbow for something like USD 50 which is less than what people earn in 6 days in all save for the poorest countries in the world. But a more telling is the comparison with other things. A duck cost 5 pence. That is 3 days of wages for a lowly spearman and 2 days for a labourer. Nowadays you can buy more than one duck for an hourly wage probably in every country in Europe (maybe save for Ukraine) and you can definitely afford more than one duck per one day of work almost everywhere in the world today (again, except for the poorest countries).
As ever it's good to catch up with your back catalogue Matt. An archer on 3d per day would earn 91s over the course of a year (if employed for a whole year and paid, both big ifs I suspect). Their salary would be worth two or three of those fancy horses you describe. A private soldier in the British Army today earns about £20k (out of which, unless this has changed since my day, he pays for board and lodgings except when in the field. £40-60k would get you a fairly fancy car. Value in a "personal flash mobility" sense seems to have some equivalence! And if you think that arrows and quarrels were expensive then, consider the cost of e.g. anti-tank guided missiles today. I recollect MILAN missiles in my day were widely understood to be equivalent in cost to a Golf GTI.
its intriguing that horse archer were present in Anglo-French armies of the period, even if they were more a sort of mounted infantry. If I recall, the Bayeaux tapestry depicts Norman archers firing from horseback, so there was clearly a precedent for these sort of troops in occidental armies. How they were used, who used them, and why they never really caught on in Europe could be an interesting subject for a future video.
In terms of crossbows, it bears pointing out that complicated mechanisms like the crossbow with multiple parts to be pieced together would be relatively more expensive than a similar item in the modern era, where the supply chains are there to provide standardised parts easily. It's why carpentry tried to avoid using nails wherever possible, for example, because nails in a pre-industrial society are fiddly and time-consuming to make.
Interesting to consider a modern soldier's rates of pay compared to his weapons and equipment. In the British Army at present, a trained private soldier is paid £55 per day. Yes, he will get some additional money when on operations and in peacetime his accommodation is cheap (although not free - neither is the cookhouse) but let's consider it as a starting point. Of course he pays tax on this too but let us put that aside for now. For the medieval private soldier, his 2d per day pay would require him to save ALL of it for 8 days to buy a crossbow. I would note that a crossbow would be rather more expensive than a longbow but would not require so much training so it might appeal to the career minded spear carrier. In comparison, 8 days of pay for the British soldier of today would be £440. Would this buy a modern assault rifle, new, at commercial rates? Well the answer is probably no but it's not far off if you could buy as part of a large government order. Certainly, two weeks money would buy something suitable albeit with iron sights but then that's what most of the world has. Let's not bring the L85 into the argument as it is ridiculously expensive. Clearly, modern soldiers are also provided with lots of expensive radios, helmets, body armour, vehicles etc which makes the argument a bit "apples and oranges" although it's true that many people buy a lot of their own kit. So in terms of being able to save up to arm himself, the man of yesteryear was better off. It would also be worth noting that the modern soldier's rate of pay wouldn't get most craftsmen or tradesmen to pick up the phone or get out of bed. Why do soldiers do it now for a pittance? Well they don't get the booty so you have to wonder.....
it would be nice if you could have put that into your favorite 'C' word, context, of what that would amount to today? What would 2 pence or a shilling, be worth today? It would also be helpful to know what a pence/shilling/pound is and how they relate to each other. Fortunatly, I see a commenter has done that, so there were 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shilling to a pound, so 240 pence to a pound?
12 pence for a crossbow would only be a few days of pay for the lowest soldiers. that's not that big of an investment? sounds very similar to a modern enlisted salary compared to the cost of a modern rifle
Could you talk a little more about looting? Were there "acceptable" and "unacceptable" targets? Did commanders ever forbid it or was that not economically viable? Was it normal to rob all the local villages blind, even if you intended to then rule the area (and might not want it to be dirt poor)?
This really depends on so many variables but the simple answer is rape wasn't really considered as heinous back then as it is today. (Typically punishment was a fairly minor fine. Remember women didn't become people until the 20th century.) Churches were frequently exempt (Henry V) but other times they were targeted like if they were heretics (Cathars). The lords primary duty is to protect his people. If he can't do that then he isn't a very good lord. This is one of the many reasons raiding was what medieval combat was mainly like. Sometimes looting was forbidden because you wanted the good will of the people. In the Peninsular War even Wellington allowed looting for a certain amount of time after a siege. Some men did it some didn't. Apparently soldiers from Creation until Waterloo were of the mindset that sacking a city after a siege was their right.
The professional army of the Franks was a continuation of the Roman army. The introduction of castles and fortification reduced the meaning of the central army. Yet, the crusades would ignite warfare at the borders of the feudal lands against headens. In the late Mediëval period, with the destruction of castles with canons, would warfare spread all over Europe between kings and kings, kings and barons, barons and barons, barons and cities, people and barons etc...…… The driver of all bloody uphieval was power and money...…. All madness of war, connected with the mentality of the nobility, ended with WW1. The Nazi's imitated the nobility in a bourgeois way and caused WW2...…. Conclusion: bourgeois capitalism killed total warfare and the NOBILITY AND THE CHURCH, NOT THE BARBARIANS, WERE THE CAUSE OF THE BLOODY HISTORY OF EUROPE...………..
How much was worthing the spending power of the aforementioned wages compared to modern standards? What could you buy with the daily wage of an archer or a man-at-arms? Thank you for your answer...
Time period you are talking about was 1300. They must have had knowledge abut the big empire of this man and maybe implemented its ways of fighting. Maybe it was to encourage people to start training in this way but it did never catch on like the Mongoles, they did let there kids ride sheep to let them train riding and was using a bow from young age. Combining this two was great in this time period but maybe it did not catch on in Europe do to the wast forestation and like you saying the horses did cost a lot and only 3 pence more when taking more risk. Mounted archers is not as protected as foot archers behind pike-men. Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (c. 1162 - August 18, 1227), born Temüjin, was the Great Khan and founder of the Mongol Empire, which became the ... Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan Date a) 1236-1240 b) late 1240-1241 c) 1241 d) 1241-1242 e) 1241 f) 1242 g) 1242 Location Eastern and Central Europe a) Modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus b) Parts of Southern and Eastern Poland c) Czech lands d) Medieval Hungary e) Kingdom of Croatia f) Southern Austria g) Bulgaria Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe Yes I know it is Wikipedia but the fact that they did use mounted horses archers in there army and was successful in Europe do effect others way of fighting.
What were the preferred weapons for English men-at-arms when fighting dismounted? (during the 100 year war) I am i wrong associating the pollaxe more with 15/16c?
Usually a spear (or sometimes they simply used their lances, shortened), with the sword and shield as backup until about the 1370s. After that we increasingly see the shield given up to focus on two-handed weapons.
Knights and above were given an additional daily sum of 12d called the regard, to compensate for lost horses. Men at Arms also received additional pay. 100 Marks per quarter for every 30 Men-at-arms. A Mark is an accounting notation. A half Mark is 1/3 of a pound, or 80 Pence. A Mark is 2/3 of a pound, or 160 Pence. Soldiers had to give 1/3 of loot to their commander, and 1/9 to the King. Their commander gave 1/3 of his loot to the King as well. If a soldier looted 9 silver coins, 1 would go to the King, three would go to their commander, who gave 1 to the King. This would leave 5 for the soldier, 2 for the commander, and 2 for the King. A Centenar could profit handsomely if all his soldiers looted this successfully, as would the King. A soldier who captured an important knight would be set for life with the ransom.
If you're interested in early-modern warfare, I could recommend a 17th century German novel called "Simplicissimus". It's whacky and relatively religiously charged, but it feels astoundingly modern in many places. The characters are surprizingly vivid and their development feels justified.
I just researched what a G36 costs vs how much a lower rank German soldier earns. A G36 costs roughly 600€, a soldier earns roughly 2000€. So a soldier has to work for a G36 just over a week. So the relationship between the "bottom line" weapon and the "bottom line" soldier is still similar today.
If you're going to tell us they were in it for the loot, then please also go into detail about what type and amount of loot a man at each tier could have expected to receive after what length of time.
In the comments benjamin lammertz mentioned that mounted infantry were common throughout history. It struck me that while I know of lots of examples I have never seen a general history that goes backwards from WWII (where cavalry or mounted infantry, I don't know which, where used on the Soviet Front), and includes a fair assessment of the importance of cavalry and mounted infantry in the Allied victory in 1918. Wikipedia has a fair article, but it's a bit piecemeal.
Not as terrible as all that by your comparison. If a 6d crossbow costs a few hundred now, say £250, a 3d archer would be on over £30k in todays money, a Lance Corporal starting pay is £21,400 now.
6 pence/day is about 25 bucks in todays dollars, if my sources are correct. I used to have a shit job as a robot operator in a car factory. I got a slave wage of 10 euros/hour, plus night/evening shift pay, experience pay, station familiarity, etc, etc. totalling about 105,27 euros for 8 hours, double that for second shift, thats about 300/day. And I didnt have to risk my life or suffer from elements. I kind of understand now whats the reason behind all that pillaging and looting in premodern warfare.
Modern privates don't get paid hardly anything, they also do not get any booty or loot. Yet they still choose to serve. I think assuming peoples reasons for serving are always purely economic (although that certainly plays a role.) Is a mistake, both now, and in the past.
Watched this video twice, I'm running an RP with a medieval-esque setting (technological regression in the extreme; aside from the odd artifact or indecipherable book, the state of the world is late 1400's in most respects and much of the modern world is myth. Does also take place on another planet, but that is a premise I borrowed wholesale from a friend's unpublished manuscript (I asked, he didn't care unless I published it)) Found this very informative, helps flesh out the world I have.
I think that if you work it out the pay wasn't that bad. 3p a day over 7 days is 21p. A rifle today can easily be over £1000. One of my shotguns is over £12000. Comparing a crossbow to a modern firearm, I don't think that they were on a bad wage.
In the subject of those supporting elements like sappers/engineers in a siege: My impression is that, most of the time, when you are erecting siege works and other jobs of that sort, the lion's share of the manpower you would devote to those tasks would largely come from your body of common fighting men anyway. I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the logistical burden of dragging along a brigade of dedicated trench-diggers if I could just as easily tell 5,000--or however many--of my regular infantry to put their weapons down and grab shovels for a particular project. If anything, I would expect the proper engineers to be a much smaller group of skilled technicians responsible for directing those building efforts when necessary, or designing structures that need to be built. Similar logic goes for artillery, at least in some cases. Sure, I would want dedicated crews on my siege engines to some extent, especially building and operating complex machinery like a counterweight trebuchet, but if we're talking about a traction trebuchet, I could see even those being operated by a few trained specialists and number of just any other men who are available; men don't have to be specialists to pull on those ropes to hurl a stone, for example. If anything, they just need enough practice to coordinate their pulling, etc.
Just one correction... According to a price list by the University of California which coroborates much of what you're saying... General laborer warned 2 pounds a year which is 20 pence a month and they usually worked 6 days a week... So general laborer earned less than footmen and archers... It would have been lucrative for a laborer to join an army even without the loot... But yes the loot made it much better
Other prices for comparison:
(d = pence for some reason)
12d = 1s, 20s = £1
London, late 14h century
4 gallons of ale - 1d
1 gallon best Kent ale - 2d
Best leg of pork - 3d
Duck or hen - 5d
Best goose - 6d or 7d roast
Sugar 8 - 18d per lb
Orange conserve - 36d per lb
Licorice - 1d per lb
2 cups of wine - 1 - 2d
Gascony wine - 3-4 d per gallon
Candles - 2d per lb
Land rent - 1-2d per acre
1 days's wages 1361-70
Carpenter - 4.5 d
Labourer - 3.5 d
Mason - 6d
Table and pair of trestles - 1s (12d)
Feather bed - 5-13s
Pair of sheets - 4s
Brass pot - 2-13s
Two hawks and a falcon - £10 (200s)
Breastplate and backplate - £3
Shield - 18s
Helmet - £2
Cheapest sword - 6d
Decent sword - 2s
Source: The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England by Ian Mortimer
Really cool, thanks!
Good stuff, really nice to get some insight on what a soldier could get with the pay. I believe this is worthy of pinning.
Incidentally, the reason why "pence" is noted as "d" is that the Latin abbreviations of equivalent coins were used at the time:
penny (d) - denarius
shilling (s) - solidus
pound (£, L, cf. lb for the mass unit) - libra
WiseMasterNinja old english coinage was LSD
So, common soldier could afford 1 best leg of pork OR some ale each day.
That's not much D:
I see medieval crossbow-makers pioneered the printer toner scam.
lol
digitaljanus
unless of course, arrows from other manufacturers could be fired by these crossbows. which they could.
(but still funny. liked :)
i guarantee you couldnt if the crossbow was made by apple ;-)
Having to synchronize each bolt to the crossbow so it would load in the first place, no thanks.
What about social reasons? People who are soldier's because of loyalty and obligation to a region, a lord, family? Perhaps being a soldier increased social/class mobility? Coming back to the loyalty aspect: tribalism is always a huge drive for people to do things- regional, religious, my group vs your group etc.
Was the money really that big a factor?
"mariners, or... seamen"
*Matt coyly glances to the camera before continuing*
Spearmen 2 pence pr. day
Foot Archers 3 pence pr. day
Mounted archers 6 pence pr. day
Hobelars 6 pence pr. day
Mounted sergeants 1 shilling pr. day (12 pence)
Knight bachelor 2 shillings pr. day (24 pence)
Knight banneret 4 shillings pr. day (48 pence)
Bear in mind, that's a _snapshot_ from 1346. It would be absurdly high for the migration period and absurdly low for the 17th century.
Golden Eagle so eight pounds is 160 shillings, about the same as a hobelar, (182 shillings and sixpence in a year if my arithmetic is alright.)
But the physician would presumably be employed year-round, while the hobelar would be sort of a seasonal contractor, right?
Here is some additional information.
The rates in 1351 in France.
Armour bearer or attendant 2.5 sous pr. day
Infantryman 3 sous pr. day
Valet 5 sous pr. day
Squire 10 sous pr. day
Knight bachelor 20 sous pr. day
Knight banneret 40 sous pr. day.
In this case sous is used as a word simply for money, and it's equivalent to deniers tournois, penny or franc after 1360.
Here is a list from The Abbeville ordinance: 31 July 1471
Conducteur 100 francs (leader of 100 men-at-arms)
Disenier 24 francs (leader of 10 men-at-arms)
Men-at-arms 15 francs
Mounted archer 5 francs
Handgunner 4 francs
Crossbowman 4 francs
Pikeman 2 patars
But what I'm actually interested in is the rate for _Coustillier_ /Gros Varlet/Valets Armés etc. The man-at-arms, Squire or Knight payed them from their own pockets, so it's kinda unclear what the pay was. It probably changed with the status of the man-at-arms and the equipment of the varlet.
I'm also interested in the differences between a _Lance à cheval_ and a _Lance à pied_ in terms of pay. Because of the introduction of cheep plate armour in the late 14th century and the increasing demand for dismounted men-at-arms, the distinction between Knight and the lower-status Mounted Sergeant disappeared (among other reasons). Mail armour was still in circulation and was often handed down to Gros Valets and Coustilliers, and they assumed the Sergeants role on the battlefield. Sergeants on the other hand became men-at-arms without a coat-of-arms, or they became Squires, a title in its own right by the mid 1300s. By 1413 the title Gentleman became common in England. Anyone from the Gentry who didn't inherit his father's coat-of-arms, (because he was not officially a Squire (the title, not the apprentice) and the title passed on to the eldest son only) could assume this title. These men were often trained in fighting and had access to plate armour of munition quality. If the norm was to dismount before combat, they in fact did not have a need for an armoured horse. It's also mentioned that when archers had acquired enough armour they were promoted to Foot Laces, the equivalent to a _Lance à pied_ . Did these men get a Mounted Sergeant's pay? 12 pence? Was the pay for a Squire, Gentleman and _Lance à pied_ /Foot lancer the same, or did the Squire and Gentleman receive more than the Foot lancer because they knew how to fight on horseback too, but only lacked the proper number of armoured horses or an armoured horse at all?
And since henry III wont be sick all year around, I assume his physician could find some other part time job during spare time.
At University I once transcribed a court order from old German (around the year 1500) ... :) I remember it quite well because I found it a little funny: A drunken man beat up a priest because he was sleeping off his hangover in a church on Sunday morning and was disrupted by the start of prayer. He was sentenced to pay 5 Taler (about 20 weeks of a mansons pay) as retribution.
That is interesting.
Is there someplace someone could find said document?
Ahahahaha
Amazing 😂😂
Sorry, non-english guy here. How many pence is a shilling?
12 pence in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound.
Ok thanks! I needed that context ;)
So, those horses cost 46.66 crossbows each...
I'm English and I didn't even know this, i'm sure most people born after 1980 probably don't! lol
It means that a silver penny would be about 1,5g, really tiny. Smaller than US dime.
2d per day = 6 days work to buy a crossbow
UK median daily wage very approx £80ish x 6 days = £480 for a crossbow
Sounds about right. Ill let Tod know he's on medieval wages
NO! 1pence in 1440 was $ 3.78 USD a crossbow was $45.38. futureboy.us/fsp/dollar.fsp?quantity=12¤cy=pence&fromYear=1440
Rl Badger well clearly there are different ways to look at it. it's all about "context"
Common people in middle agas were not badly treated. Only after the industrial revolution, many people lost their land and became proletariat labors and working 12 hours a day for much less. The situation only recovered in the late 20th century in developed nations.
Ok let me put this in other terms: SIG Sauer 225, a professional weapon, is listed on their home page costing 1032$, so just around 900€ (08.12.18). That's half a month's net pay, or a third gross, so 10-15 days of work. The ammo is a lot cheaper, and it's easier to maintain than a crossbow, but I'm getting paid less than my medieval counterpart relative to my equipment...
LOL that smile and short pause when you said seamen.
I don't know what you mean...
😓
Matt likes the booty.
Matt, what's with all these unfocused videos on fighting and history? I want more videos on sausage pronunciation and RUclipsr heights.
If you actually do, then I can set up a Patreon account just for you. ;-)
scholagladiatoria in may sign me up
The term RUclipsr made me think of some kind of human potato.
So a medieval archer had to work 4 days to afford a crossbow. I have to work 3-5 days to earn enough to buy a decent crossbow, at about $100 a day, before taxes. And that's not even taking into account living expenses such as food and lodging.
Seems legit.
Horse Prices
Destrier (Biggest war horse) - £50-£100
Palfrey (Everyday riding horse) - £10-£50
Rouncey (Less well bred riding horse for a squire) - £5-£10
Hackney (For lesser servants) - £3
Packhorse - 7s
Carthorse - 2s 6d
I'm not sure what year this is, which makes a huge difference. A horse might have cost 6 or 8 times less after the plague, due to deflation caused by everyone dying.
Horses prices remained relatively stable since raising a Destrier was a huge task that required a lot of labour- the increase in supply of Destriers from the dying was more than offset by the increase in labour cost to train and maintain Destriers. There are letters of people complaining that their valets and servants are running away due to better paying jobs and the nobles are being forced to do the menial jobs of mucking stables and washing the horses down after training.
How much was a courser?
I looked into this as well and what I noticed is that soldiers operating missile weapons such as bows and crossbows were paid more than the common foot soldier right across Europe and across the centuries. This even applied when guns came into play and they were paid more than pike soldiers. The big reversal only occurred in the late 16th century when pikemen started getting paid more than musketeers/arquebuseers.
Other than that for people who are interested in campaigns I can recommend primary sources like:
Memoirs of Blaise de Monluc
Biography of Chevalier Bayard (written by someone close to him)
Biography of Pero Nino (written by his 'squire')
Froissart's Chronicle
thanks for the sources.
the cost of a horse then really makes me think i am getting robbed blind by merchants in mount and blade when i sell captured horses...... the cost to sell a horse is ridiculously cheap
i dont use mods.
elgostine true
"Trickle-Down Bootynomics" they were so ahead of their time.
I think it has always been true in history that the richer always got more
Especially since back then (now to sometimes) the richer were seen as more valuable than the poorer.
Or we're so far behind the times....
Nope, we just havn't become any smarter in 1000 years. Still just as stupid.
Just a crumb of booty...
It's a smart system. When you hire people under these conditions and the big pay out is only at the end of the campaign you are saving a lot of money on all the guys who died in battle (or more likely of cholera or similar diseases).
Well yeah, it's a smart system for the 1%. Obviously these soldiers needed unions.
Monarcho-Syndicalism x)
or onions. If they had onions they wouldnt get scurvy.
BIIGtony kept going for at least another 400 years
+hrotha
They needed to seize the means of campaining.
Your pronunciation of « chevauchée » is quite good.
thanks
How is your pronunciation of squirrel (or écureuil, for that matter)? :-)
So the levied soldiers were in it for duty and booty.
Basically yes.
Call of Duty.... and Booty.
Levied or 'mustered' soldiers gathered by commission of array tend to be local militias to deal with immediate threats during the "100 years war", who bought their own equipment and then bought 'to spec' by the county sheriffs office armoury. See the Bridport Muster (1320 and 1457). Later in the domestic 'Wars of The Roses these arrayed soldiers would often find themselves in the larger campaign not just for political allegiances but for geographical ones too. Matt a video on the household structure and indenture would be cool. The indenture system (at least later on in the 15th century, my particular area of study) means that you often follow your lord or patron to war and the resulting loot is a bonus. Esquires on the Agincourt campaign were required in their contract to bring along an average of 3 to 6 archers, for whom they (the esquires) were responsible that they were equipped to a sufficient level for service. These would then be banded up in to companies and assigned to a commander. Later during the height of the WotR, for the Barnet campaign the Paston brothers (John I & John II) took with them 6 members of their household as a retinue. At the siege of Caister castle two of John II's men were killed in the fighting. There was no opportunity for booty from a campaign then. In fact to letters to his mother, John II complains of want of funds for wages or his troops despite their loyalty, would not sign on again for another year. So I think, especially as we grind on toward the 15th century, an element of the social structure comes in to effect. You follow your lord or patron ino whatever military endeavours they set themselves upon. the household by then was not just a way of earning some keep, it was often an extended family unit (see C.M Woolgar's The Great Medieval Household). Also in the lead up to the bigger campaigns when arrays were used, ostracisation from the community could be a driving matter in turning up for inspection (the country records however show there was a wide spectrum when it comes to this. Some show many willing men turning up, while Havering in essex sent only a few with many weak and infirm, so that they didn't loose their best labour to war for harvest time). So as well as loot, I think society and the way people functioned within it, especially in the 15th century, was also a key driving force in why people fought.
The idea of dieing for vague principles like nationality and patriotism is a recent phenomenon. War is about getting rich at the expense of the enemy (whom ever that might be) and young men are always attracted to the idea of getting rich fast.
So, I guess medieval soldiers were paid like waiters?
He is referencing US tipping culture.
+knightshousegames
Parisian cafés.
I think they typically got paid 3-4 times a year.
Kind of evokes the line 'Tonight we dine in hell'
So it was just like in Mount & Blade
Good to know
That's all I kept thinking. Better leave some more loot to those poor bastards then
Mount and Blade is based off _something_... Other than the fictional land and states, it is based on a generalized version of medieval Europe. Details such as the pay are all but fictional.
(Though it's as good as impossible to put an actual estimation on the period. Seeing both plate and mail armour is used.)
Yeah, it mixes concepts from different times and places in one fictional land, but it's oddly realistic as far as video games are concerned.
Aldor exactly what i was thinking lol
Why does armor appear black in so many 15th century depictions?
Several reasons. Some armour was black (or rather, unpolished). Some was deliberately coloured by heat treatment or paint. And sometimes it is because the manuscript used silver foil and that has gone black with age.
black armor for the cold; if you watch game of thrones lol
ben wilkins I’ve heard blackening steel makes it less likely to rust maybe that’s why
I leveled up. Got a mount.
Hobilars were more mounted infantry than they were light cavalry. They rode to battle and fought on foot.
Okay, basically similar to a mounted archer in this case then.
I thought they were often equipped with lances? (Which doesn’t mean they didn’t dismount to fight sometimes, but suggests they were more than ‘mounted infantry’.)
The impression I’d always had was of a light cavalry force, good for scouting skirmishing harassing etc... the kind of force that’s effective and easy to raise in a country where hunting is popular and the main military threat comes from reiving and cattle raids and things.
so like dragoons? the horse is just for transportation?
That's my understanding, yes. They *could* fight as light cavalry skirmishers but it really wasn't their thing.
@@Alefiend Yes, almost all mounted men in the later eras 'could' fight as very light/disordered cavalry but they really only functioned well on raids or to confuse the enemy on cavalry numbers and didn't train in cavalry manoeuvres or how to make coordinated charges which mean they would be wrecked by regular men-at-arms and even worse by well-equipped knights trained from boyhood. The main role was to move quickly on raids and in support of garrisons or foragers to arrive to the site of a battle quickly enough to make a difference.
To give an example of how much money was up for grabs in medieval warfare, look at the ransoms paid to English knights and men-at-arms after the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. There were so many prisoners taken, that many of the poorer ones were released after swearing an oath never to take up arms against the English again. I've seen various figures of the ransoms paid over the following years to secure the release of those captured, but if you include the ransom of King Jean II (also captured at Poitiers), estimates generally are over $1 trillion in today's money. If you exclude the King and his sons, the ransoms still total over $300 million in today's value.
interesting enough, this kind of 'pay by loot' system of medieval armies is really common nowadays - taking necessary precautions into account, obviously - to many irregular guerrilla forces. naturally loot wasn't exactly criminalized back then, but if we can put aside the legal argument for a second, we can easily see some irregular, paramilitary forces today paying their entire campaigns by looting, extorsion, kidnapping, smuggling, etc. similarly, fighting bands are raised by strongmen With enough leadership and Charisma within the community, rather than a standardized and centralized recruitment programme. I'm not saying we are about to start building trebuchets and performing funny dancing parties inside castle halls, but we Java some outstanding similarities between post cold-war non-state 'armies' and medieval ones, structurally and economically speaking.
This just proves that tribalism appears naturally regardless of the context.
I'd love a full video as to why exactly the English preferred to dismount and fight on foot. You briefly cover experience fighting the Welsh archers and Scottish schiltrons but not much detail beyond that. It's a historical fact I see repeated SO often when reading about English military history but I've never actually had the reasoning behind it explained other than "because they're English and that's what the English liked to do".
I think it might have something to do with fighting the French, and saying to themselves "Wow Calvary is not great".
if it was fighting on the continent, i assume it has a lot to do with getting them across water.
Alex Hutchins Yeah and maybe if they hadn't drawn that faulty conclusion, they wouldn't have lost the Hundred Years' War. Which so many people seem to forget because they're too busy telling themselves the story of how they won a battle at Agincourt for the 17-millionth time...
I don't think getting horses across water was the reason. They were capable of that and also they could have bought them from allied territory in France. They had to have the horses with them or they wouldn't qualify as men-at-arms etc and get paid. They just dismounted to fight the battle then mounted to pursue the fleeing enemy. Probably fought mounted in skirmishes sometimes too.
brotomann - I could speculate that the art of horse cavalry is a very difficult martial skill, especially besides controlling the horse and holding a lance while charging at reckless speed, Britain being an island with constant damp weather muddying the ground doesn't encourage fine equestrian training.
On sheaves of bolts. Modern arrows can be quite expensive. Even the non-customized arrows that have to be cut down to your draw and fletched, before points or broadheads are bought. I did a quick google search, opening the first windows to each category of arrows and then bows for sale, and found this: On Pape's Archery Unlimited, arrows started at $67.00 a dozen, going up to $187.00 a dozen, all "build your own". On Cabella's under the Diamond Archery brand, bows started at $300.00 and went to $700.00. Now, relatively speaking, I'm fairly sure medieval arrows weren't as expensive as modern ones, but given the amounts you would need for a campaign, it's easy to see the difference in relative expense (bows to arrows or bolts). Perhaps a sheaf was a gross (144)? Nope, it was 24. (though I imagine it was more often than not a bit of an arbitrary measurement)
1786, Francis Grose, A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons, page 34:
Arrows were anciently made of reeds, afterwards of cornel wood, and occasionally of every species of wood: but according to Roger Ascham, ash was best; arrows were reckoned by sheaves, a sheaf consisted of twenty-four arrows.
I am pretty sure that medieval arrows were expensive mainly mecause it is really time consuming to produce one. Think about it, it's not just the arrowhead. The shaft has to be of proper thickness, it has to be straight and smooth, the feathering is glued and tied up. So if we have about 24 arrows or bolts per sheaf, we are talking about several working days and several people making them. Even if the makers would be paid as little as foot spearman or foot archer, the price would be quite substantial.
Looting was common for centuries afterwards, even (possibly an exceptional circumstance) at the sack of Peking in the Boxer campaign.
And …
“And one of Wellinton's Generals, Maj.Gen Frederick Philipse Robinson, who served in the Peninsular 1812-1814, wrote in 1813:
“... wherever we move devastation marks our steps; the Portuguese are an army of thieves, the Spaniards have no feeling for their countrymen and our soldiers would be worse than either were it not for the severe discipline.
“This severe discipline was the strict punishment of what was becoming known as 'looting', from the Hindustani word lut, to rob, since it was in India that it flourished in the first half of the 19th Century.”
-- www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_loot1.htm (notes to poem “Loot”).
_We love the booty_ Easton 2018
Yep, loot and ransom could make you rich. Could cause problems as soldiers stopped to loot the dead and dieing. To some extent the system continued, I think, to right before WWI. Specifically in the RN with prize money.
I think we still give out prize money today even if there call.
I would actually really like a video where you suggested more books we might pick up to learn about different points in military history.
If you know of a few, that is. It’s hard to figure out where the credible sources are.
Swordsmen of the British Empire!
matt, if the englishmen's arrows were provided by the ruler, which means standardized to a certain degree, does that means that the archers need to provide a SUITABLE bow with matching poundage for the arrow's spine?
It's a good question, but my understanding is that with high poundage warbows and 1/2 inch thick arrows, spine just doesn't matter much. The bows from the Mary Rose all seem to be between 120-180lbs draw weight and the arrows do vary, but seem mostly standardised.
More videos like this please! It helps me to recreate how things worked back in the time and give me a general idea of medieval Europe world. And that's great!
22:44 here we switched to a different Matt Easton. He sounds different and he wears a different shirt.
If we say that an M4 (which costs the US government roughly $650) is a cost equivalent to the crossbows the average US infantryman, who makes roughly $68 a day, is making FAR less relative to his medieval counterpart.
Well a m4 is pritty complex...a few boxes of rounds is prob better estimate 1 qviver of bolts cost 16d aka 8 days of work lets equal that to 1000 bullets (you use alot more ammunition now). No idea what US gov pay for bullets but found on some sites 1000 bullets is about 200 $ witch meens 3.125 days.
modern soildier dont pay for their horses.
The M4 is much more sophisticated than a crossbow, though. You can make a decent crossbow with hand tools if you know how, while an AR-15 upper receiver is precisely milled out of aluminum and is something even a lot of modern gunsmiths can't make.
But the modern infantryman has year-round living quarters, medical care, and a retirement funded by the government. Medieval era infantrymen were more like modern contractors- show up and get paid well for a certain job but everything else is on you with no further obligations by the government.
4:40 Well it seems a lot of them also either stayed or came back, because Bordeaux is full of pubs staffed by English people these days :D When I did my semester abroad there and after 6-8 weeks we couldn't stand to see any more wine, we spent most evenings either at the "HMS Victory" or the "Houses of Parliament" and I genuinely think all the people working there were English, at least all I spoke to. Very nice video, thanks :)
So we can say that a horse worthed the same as modern car, and a sword the same as a modern assault rifle? I.e. from dirt cheap to an arm and a leg
Yes but remember with a warhorse and armor as well as a rifle you tend to get what you pay for. There really isn't THAT much of a difference between the greatest sword ever made and the one daddy bought you when you went off and joined the army.
brotherandythesage
That really isn't true. There is a world of difference between a cheap sword and a well made, expensive sword. The quality of steel, protection offered by the hand guard style, hand guard material, weight distribution, grip quality etc.
The differences between a cheap sword that "daddy bought you" and an expensive sword made by a skilled blade smith could very easily mean the difference between having your hand/fingers cut off vs a blade sliding harmlessly off your guard.
I did state a sword for war so not wall hangers. The "sword" you're describing sounds like a modern "replica" decorative sword and not a sword for combat. You test a sword before you buy it. Remember your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers depends upon your equipment. Did you not understand that? Yes a cheap theatrical sword from India which isn't a combat weapon would do the things you describe and if someone was dumb enough to use one in real life combat they deserve to be cut down. However the greatest arming sword ever made isn't capable of doing that to any inexpensive heirloom arming sword that was meant for battle.
brotherandythesage I guarantee you there is a hell of a lot of difference in between the worlds greatest sword and an average sword
I definitely understand some of the differences between a basic stock sword made at a journeyman level and a top of the line sword. The question I think @brotheranythesage is getting at is how often the differences are enough to change the outcome of a fight.
A basic sword will wreck bodies and block incoming blows. An excellent sword still needs good technique and advantage over an opponent to exploit gaps in armor.
To put things into perspective, how much food can you buy with 2 pence in this period? I want to know how good the living standards of soldiers in this period compared to a land owning peasant.
No wonder it was such a big deal when commanders tried to limit looting!
You said that loot was distributed from the top down and not a matter of keeping what you get, but what about ransom? What if, as common foot soldier/spearman or archer were somehow fortunate to capture someone of worth/wealth and successfully managed to ransom this prisoner off, who gets the ransom money? The person that took the prisoner or is the same as loot and the King gets the ransom and lets it trickle down from him>
If my memory is right, if a common soldier ransomed a man, he'd get the ransom for himself. However if the person he captured was a noble, then he'd usually sell his hostage to another noble who'd then ransom him himself.
However looking at the aftermath of certain battles, it does look like it was the king/commander who had a say on prisoner management.
First of, a common soldier had little chance to capture a nobleman (better equipment, more skills). You had to have the capital to feed and "entertain" your noble prisoner until you get the ransom (months, years). Also sending a ransom note is not easy if you are basically an illiterate peasant. So all you can do is hand him over to your lord and hope for a nice reward.
I realize that the odds of a common soldier to capture a nobleman were very high, which was why I said, ". . . somehow fortunate. . . ", in other words, if he got very lucky. While this situation is not very likely to happen, it is (theoretically possible), all it takes is to be at the right place at the right time. A noble could be momentarily distracted and/or looking the wrong way and a commoner comes up from behind and hits him in the back of the head with a club or mallet, or something similar. Or a noble on horseback gets knocked off, loses his weapon, and an enemy soldier is right there to take him prisoner while he's stunned and possibly even injured.
I will concede that actually holding a noble/high born prisoner for ransom would have been more difficult for the average common soldier of the time. It probably was common practice for these prisoners to be sold off to the soldier's lord so they could take better care of the prisoner and actually write to his family for ransom. However, on campaign, an illiterate soldier could (once more, in theory) ask a monk or some camp follower who was literate, to write the ransom letter. I was wondering if there was any documentation of something of this sort happening but upon further thought I think that it's unlikely since what noble/upper class solider/knight would admit to being captured and ransomed off by some common soldier.
I imagine that in the aftermath of a battle heralds or others under a flag of truce would go back and forth to learn about the dead and captured.
Also, reflect on Henry V's line in the play, "Let each man kill his prisoner." This implies the holding of prisoners was not centralised.
Horse costs also varied a lot depending on place. There are numerous period sources stating that medieval Hungary is a great places to buy horses on the cheap and in bulk. A low quality horse was affordable enough for some farmer families to own.
True- much of the price was related to the pricing of improved land and the cost of labour for raising/training the horse where the closer to steppes the prices generally decreased. France and England were relatively developed and pastures purely for horses meant the loss of some other income whereas in Hungary and eastern Poland there were available pasturelands with no people wanting to use for other types of production.
They used crossbows as currency as well quite often, and black powder weapons in the 1600's I can't get through a chapter of any Historical event without wading through sentences like "He wanted to give me 14 pistols but I would have 16" I'm not even exaggerating that was a direct quote from Donald Mcbane, he seemed to walk around with sacks of pistols, and use them as money to buy anything he wanted, girls, ale, whatever, he even traded guns for swords, and swords for guns. and everyone used them to buy beer.
Pistols are an often quoted "currency" of value that could be compared across different currencies. It's a standard value to which other currencies were "pegged" and which didn't suffer from precious metal reductions when the state needed a debt reduction or more money.
"We love the booty"
- scholagladiatoria, circa 2018
In this context it would be interesting how much you have to pay for a loaf of bread? Or some meat? How much food you could buy for 1 pence?
You make the point that the crossbows cost considerably more than a soldier's daily pay - but is that any different from today? I don't know what modern soldiers' pay is, or what military rifles cost, but given that a cheap semi-auto-only AR15 starts at around $500 (US) and goes up, I can't imagine soldiers today make the cost of their weapons in a day either.
True.
scholagladiatoria Really excellent video though! I didn't know looting was such a vital part, and that explains why there was so much trouble when commanders would order troops not to do it.
E1 in the US army makes about 12-1300$ a month after taxes a bit over 300$ a week(this rapidly increases within just a couple years but we are talking about base level soldiers and even an e-4 the most common pay grade in the army makes about 4-500$ a week) an m4 carbine(currently the standard weapon at least for my m.o.s. though some use m16a4s) costs around 700$ and m16a4 is about the same. So two weeks wage for a modern soldier to purchase his weapon(ya know if that was legal and all)
I need to get my BLOQC(British Longbow Operator Qualification Certificate).
I don't know this for sure, but assuming Mr. Easton is correct (a very safe bet) regarding improved late 15th/early 16th century technology that allowed for purer, more homogeneous steel to be created: esp in those days, that improved tech was all about the heat-treat. Mr. Easton touched on this, but I think it deserves to be stressed even more. Whatever the technological improvements--and I'm not well-versed enough in that period to say exactly what they were--said improvements gave the smiths the ability to create higher temperatures for longer, to regulate those temperatures more precisely, and probably to a lesser extent, to be able to quench the steel and drop it back to a proscribed temperature. That's how ore is purified, and in modern times, formulas for specific types of steels read very much like recipes, telling the foundry to (for example) bring the temp up to 2800 degrees for 35 min, then air cool to 1500 and re-fire to 3250 degrees for 48 min for an HRC (hardness) rating of 57-59, or 3960 degrees for 41 min for an HRC of 60-62; water quench both types before rolling hot, etc., etc.
Very recently, like several yrs or a decade at most, Crucible Industries invented a process they call "particle metallurgy" whereby instead of being poured into billets as in the past, after steel has gone through all of its heat-treat processes, but while still in a molten state, its blasted into a jet of liquid nitrogen. This causes it to immediately cool, of course, but what's so useful about this is the rapid cooling from a liquid state means the steel hardens into tiny spheres with an unbelievably homogeneous structure at a molecular level. In other words, all the impurities are removed and what you're left with are millions of metal spheres with exactly the same latticework of iron, carbon, and whatever other elements were incorporated into that latticework through the heat treatment, like chromium, tungsten, silica, magnesium, vanadium, etc. Steel is, after all, technically a crystal, and the crystalline structure is stronger if it more uniform. The particle metallurgy process produces tiny spheres of steel with essentially identical molecular structuress; these spheres can then be melted and shaped just like a regular ingot.
This process, which other foundries adopted asap because it is so clearly superior (changing the process just enough to avoid patent issues, but produce the same result) has revolutionized blade steel for high-end knives. What was considered excellent steel 15 yrs ago, like 440C, is now viewed by most in the knife industry as just barely good enough to be called "high quality steel". And with good reason, since top-of-the-line blade steels today basically double or triple 440C's edge retention and toughness, while being more corrosion-resistant and still easier to grind into blades. It's kind of ridiculous, really--the knife industry has made as much progress in blade quality in the past ten years as in about the previous 60.
this would be a great resource for game designers!
Or filmmakers. No longer modern soldiers in historical settings, but real medieval brutes
There was also Skirmishing around the main set-piece battles. Militias particularly were better suited to Skirmishing to break up units, especially when you don't have enough Cavalry. (Cavalry can also be used for Skirmishing.) It's particularly useful against Massed Pikes, ever since Macedonia, and the Thracian Peltasts, because the Pikemen can't turn and reform out to the sides if flanked by lighter faster skirmishers with Javelins. (The Peltasts were used specifically for this as mercenaries by the Athenians.)
Interesting - it sounds like if you wanted better protection and also better pay, you had to get a horse? Horses were really useful and important anyway, just that the way the army sets this up is probably based on the types and numbers of troops they want. Also, seeing how long it took people to move up and how many died before they had the chance would be cool.
A "Sheaf of Arrows" was defined as the number required to fill a quiver. By 1415 this was a standardised 24 arrows - it was probably the same a century earlier.
So the English military was a trickle down economy.
trickle down economy is basically neo-feudalism.
It really is. Corporatism is a nice word for feudalism. Think mobsters or warlords ruling the country. Or banks
Funnily enough, as someone who does archery, I do actually have an old certificate from my club that says I'm a competent and safe archer and therefore allowed to shoot without supervision. I'm not sure if they still do this because I did indeed get mine sometime back in the dark ages 🤣
There is an old Spanish army anthem, that translates sais "opousing pikes to horses, oposing achebuses to pikemen", that gives an idea of the basic use of the troops of footsoldiers.
Was bewildered for a moment at the 20:00 mark where you said the crossbow was "twelve pence a day". I think the weapons were purchased outright once only for the use of the king's mariners, who would be able to use them effectively without the constant practice needed by the regular archers.
Like modern software manufacturers, they've obviously developed the concept of "crossbow as a service".
No wonder Ernest & Acton (E&A ) was unpopular with crosswbows enthusiasts.
slip of the tongue.
Me. wow, must be so difficult to work out how much their money was worth today.
Matt. So this geezer buys a horse for 40 shilli-
40 shillings?! Christ on a bike, day light bloody robbery, that. Damn thing better throw pommels too.
I kept thinking for possible alternatives for "rate of fire" for the rate at which archers loosed their arrows.
To be honest with you Matt, "Rate of Release" carries some very unfortunate connotations with it.
I guess the one "copper" difference between a spear/bill/...man and a bowman pay was justified by the cost of feeding geese! More seriously awesome review and great explanations.
By the way being born and living in Guyenne- Aquitaine I know that loosing our cultural and trade links - wine export for example but not only - with England was a HUGE deal 600-800 years ago.
Lately I have been thinking about my countless hours of gaming, especially MMOs and noticed a word that pops up quite often that being "Guild". With that I started to wonder what exactly is a guild and what role they served in the medieval (if they were around) to all the way through the Renaissance? Could you do a video on this, or at least an explanation here in the comments?
probably simplyfied: the guillds were associations of craftsmen that regulated the prize of the work and to some extent the quality.
So each member of the guild would get paid approximately the same (according to their rank and status, of course) and the cost for the customer wouldd be standardized as well. on the other hand, by contracting members of a guild the customer knew what he got for his money.
PrimordialNightmare so they were more or less a primative form of a union
More like a mixture of a union and a cartel. They had the monopoly. Only members of the guilds were allowed to do those jobs, to train apprentices and so on. They were the industrial complex of the medieval. In some areas (like parts of modern switzerland) the guilds were the actual goverment of the cities.
Most of the various town guilds were also part of the town militia and often fought together at least in all the European places I have read about guildsmen were often doing some martial training not only to fight for their town but there could be intense guild rivalries. Wealthier/older guildsmen would be nearly the equivalent of a knight bringing their apprentices to fight rather than squires and at least in Andalusia the town guilds were very predatory in raiding across the 'border' where the border is really hazily defined much of the time and various Lords would often pay in a protection racket sort of scheme to the local guilds who often took to raiding their neighbours when they lacked more proper enemy targets.
This is essentially how the Italian communes, Swiss and Flanders composed large parts of their military was via guild organizations initially and then the town/city/state stepped in to better organize the guilds and regulate commerce so it wasn't total war which some of the guilds were happy to try and practice.
Great video! More like this, please!
One question: were the levied soldiers part of the Knights' retinues/companies?
From how I understand it, when a King or other high-noble decided to wage war, they would do two things: hire mercenaries (i.e. unrelated soldiers or men-at-arms) and demand service from their vassals.
Knights, Nobles, and Nobles-who-were-Knights, when rendering their service, would also , along with any retainers, levy the serfs from their estates to become part of their retinue/company. Some nobles who didn't wish to fight and had enough clout to refuse would simply send their levy and some amount of money or supplies, instead.
Am I right so far?
So these Knights were also paid a salary on top of fighting as being their required service? Or were the Knights you described more in a mercenary arrangement (i.e. they were not vassals and simply joined up for the booty/glory).
If they were vassals rendering their service, does that mean that some of the salaried soldiers you mentioned were brought in as part of the Knights' levy? If so, then who paid that salary? Their lord or the King?
Thanks!
As time wore on armies became increasingly professional and less levied. Feudal service was for 40 days a year. (And some men had rights to only serve in their shire.) Once this was passed (or if you left your area of service) you were paid an agreed upon amount. During the Hundred Years' War the army was made up of mercenary companies. Soldiers signed up as a certain type of troop with their company (which tended to be made up of all one type of troop) for a set amount of pay and service time. (Very few open ended time commitments.) Mercenaries tended to be the best quality of soldier as their captains had reputations to keep and so would recruit men trained to a certain standard. In many ways soldiers were like a guild; You expected them to provide a certain level of service which meant training and equipment.
Levies are not mutually exclusive from professionalism. Levying only describes the way the soldiers are recruited (levying being conscription). Professionalism describes the quality and way of life or career for the soldiers. A levy soldier can be a professional soldier by making soldering his career, just like on the other end a mercenary or volunteer soldier might not be professional by being undisciplined, poorly trained, and/or only fighting rarely or occasionally.
But how many days did they get paid?
Did they salary start on the day they went to join the camp and end the day they returned home? Or was there some unpaid time in between?
At a guess it was while on campaign, they usually weren't standing armies, so no peacetime pay as it were. In the off season you went back to farming... or whatever.
26 minutes? If there's no *chorizo* in it, I'm not watching
There is chorizo, you just have to spot it.
well, I watched it through Matt, but I haven't come across any chorizo.
I'm not disappointed, though, it was informative as always!
I especially liked the "how long is a string" idiom - I'm not a native speaker, so I'm gonna use it from now on
Loot?
So in medieval times being a soldier, was like playing 'World of Warcraft' in modern times?
Not just medieval times, but loot (either goods or land or people) was the main motivator and pay of the soldiers and their leaders going from pre-history all the way until the invention of the levee en masse or general conscription in the Napoleonic era. Even then, prize ships and general looting when cities were sacked were significant. The Crimean War might be the first time soldiers could reliably be looked upon as something other than officially sanctioned bandits.
Great video. I had similar views after reading Sir Charles Oman's The Art of War in the Middle Ages (1278-1485AD). Interesting point: the mounted men-at-arms (the French started doing this too) often dismounted during large battles as you said, so the horses' main advantage was mobility for patrols, skirmishes and maneuvers before and during battles
Hi Matt, on your recommendation I got the D.A. Kinsley compilation book British Sword Fighters. I just read your forward, nad I wanted to say that I found it fascinating that Imperial era swords were often sold blunt and not sharped until it's owner was deployed. It also seemed curious to me that people would actually try to get away with using the prop swords that tailors sold alongside military uniforms. I have a soft spot for these sorts of odd cultural quirks, and was wondering if you can recommend any other sources.
It's great to hear that you enjoyed it. You can find a lot of period diaries and memoirs on Leonaur publishing.
Thanks
I've heard the Brits, Canadian and American racing into Germany during WWII had themselves quite a bit of a loot.
Prarp Vadanathorn Russians too, the officers had a very high 'care package' allowance to send home to family.
Juliet Barker's Agincourt is a great book, it also goes into the entire campaign and setup to the battle, which itself is a relatively short part of the book near the end.
Yes Juliet Barker and Anne Curry are really leaders in this field.
Juliet also does quite well in trying to make an inherently hilariously dry subject matter as the financial minutiae of Henry's campaign expenses quite interesting!
Hey Matt! Quick question: what would happen if a farmer/craftsman could not afford a spear/sword to fight for his lord/king? Another great video, thanks for everything!
A craftsman like a Blacksmith (whichever specialisation), Bowyer, Carpenter or Stonemason would be exhempt from their frontline duty. Thus they wouldn't actualt have to fight. Plus; these people were usually all but "poor". Most of them were part of the higher middle class in society (Examples of Blacksmiths even going as far as into the Royal court of Wales).
So it would be unlikely that they, would be unable to afford a weapon.
However, farmers and the peasantry are a different matter indeed. To my knowledge, they'd just be conscripted anyway and *my guess* would be that they'd probably have taken anything they could have when they left their home (those that weren't pressed into the army at least), so, a pitchfork or club or something. Later in their service they' most likely have been able to afford a proper weapon though. And it seems only logical to me that they'd get a proper weapon before anything else.
Love how horses of the 14th and 15th century that were considered expensive cost less than 1 modern pound.
#scholagladiatoria 2 pens? so that is 6 day of work for crosbow? it does not seams like bad deal to me....to buy myself crosbow i need to work more than that....or...i am just living in fucked up country.....o.O
They still needed to pay for other things I think, and take some home for the family or invest it in more equipment.
You should not compare that to an authentic medieval crossbow today. That is a niche market and therefore rather more expensive than things which are mass produced. But you can get a cheap modern crossbow for something like USD 50 which is less than what people earn in 6 days in all save for the poorest countries in the world. But a more telling is the comparison with other things. A duck cost 5 pence. That is 3 days of wages for a lowly spearman and 2 days for a labourer. Nowadays you can buy more than one duck for an hourly wage probably in every country in Europe (maybe save for Ukraine) and you can definitely afford more than one duck per one day of work almost everywhere in the world today (again, except for the poorest countries).
As ever it's good to catch up with your back catalogue Matt. An archer on 3d per day would earn 91s over the course of a year (if employed for a whole year and paid, both big ifs I suspect). Their salary would be worth two or three of those fancy horses you describe. A private soldier in the British Army today earns about £20k (out of which, unless this has changed since my day, he pays for board and lodgings except when in the field. £40-60k would get you a fairly fancy car. Value in a "personal flash mobility" sense seems to have some equivalence! And if you think that arrows and quarrels were expensive then, consider the cost of e.g. anti-tank guided missiles today. I recollect MILAN missiles in my day were widely understood to be equivalent in cost to a Golf GTI.
"hey folks mattiece in here scholar gladiatori" -RUclips auto captions
I wonder how much money one would get selling secondhand Chevalier armour in those days? Those soldiers must have made a killing after Agincourt.
Asmin Siza well, they would also had to have done a killing during agincourt....... badum dish!
its intriguing that horse archer were present in Anglo-French armies of the period, even if they were more a sort of mounted infantry. If I recall, the Bayeaux tapestry depicts Norman archers firing from horseback, so there was clearly a precedent for these sort of troops in occidental armies. How they were used, who used them, and why they never really caught on in Europe could be an interesting subject for a future video.
Not enough large open fields i suppose. Western Europe was mostly forests.
In terms of crossbows, it bears pointing out that complicated mechanisms like the crossbow with multiple parts to be pieced together would be relatively more expensive than a similar item in the modern era, where the supply chains are there to provide standardised parts easily. It's why carpentry tried to avoid using nails wherever possible, for example, because nails in a pre-industrial society are fiddly and time-consuming to make.
Interesting to consider a modern soldier's rates of pay compared to his weapons and equipment. In the British Army at present, a trained private soldier is paid £55 per day. Yes, he will get some additional money when on operations and in peacetime his accommodation is cheap (although not free - neither is the cookhouse) but let's consider it as a starting point. Of course he pays tax on this too but let us put that aside for now. For the medieval private soldier, his 2d per day pay would require him to save ALL of it for 8 days to buy a crossbow. I would note that a crossbow would be rather more expensive than a longbow but would not require so much training so it might appeal to the career minded spear carrier.
In comparison, 8 days of pay for the British soldier of today would be £440. Would this buy a modern assault rifle, new, at commercial rates? Well the answer is probably no but it's not far off if you could buy as part of a large government order. Certainly, two weeks money would buy something suitable albeit with iron sights but then that's what most of the world has. Let's not bring the L85 into the argument as it is ridiculously expensive. Clearly, modern soldiers are also provided with lots of expensive radios, helmets, body armour, vehicles etc which makes the argument a bit "apples and oranges" although it's true that many people buy a lot of their own kit. So in terms of being able to save up to arm himself, the man of yesteryear was better off.
It would also be worth noting that the modern soldier's rate of pay wouldn't get most craftsmen or tradesmen to pick up the phone or get out of bed.
Why do soldiers do it now for a pittance? Well they don't get the booty so you have to wonder.....
it would be nice if you could have put that into your favorite 'C' word, context, of what that would amount to today? What would 2 pence or a shilling, be worth today?
It would also be helpful to know what a pence/shilling/pound is and how they relate to each other. Fortunatly, I see a commenter has done that, so there were 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shilling to a pound, so 240 pence to a pound?
Hobelar were skirmishing cavalry, so definitely fits to the topic :) Hobbys were an Irish horse breed..
Hilarious shirt, too, btw...
MENS, WHY ARE WE FIGHTING FOR!?
FOR THE LOOT!!!!
16 pence for a box of bolts, 3 pence for the crossbowman. In 1000 years historians will be comparing salaries with the price of Hellfire missiles.
Mount n Blade players understand that concept thoroughly ^^
12 pence for a crossbow would only be a few days of pay for the lowest soldiers. that's not that big of an investment? sounds very similar to a modern enlisted salary compared to the cost of a modern rifle
Could you talk a little more about looting? Were there "acceptable" and "unacceptable" targets? Did commanders ever forbid it or was that not economically viable? Was it normal to rob all the local villages blind, even if you intended to then rule the area (and might not want it to be dirt poor)?
This really depends on so many variables but the simple answer is rape wasn't really considered as heinous back then as it is today. (Typically punishment was a fairly minor fine. Remember women didn't become people until the 20th century.) Churches were frequently exempt (Henry V) but other times they were targeted like if they were heretics (Cathars). The lords primary duty is to protect his people. If he can't do that then he isn't a very good lord. This is one of the many reasons raiding was what medieval combat was mainly like. Sometimes looting was forbidden because you wanted the good will of the people. In the Peninsular War even Wellington allowed looting for a certain amount of time after a siege. Some men did it some didn't. Apparently soldiers from Creation until Waterloo were of the mindset that sacking a city after a siege was their right.
If a city surrendered peacefully without a fight, then no looting would be allowed, because that would discourage other cities from surrendering.
The professional army of the Franks was a continuation of the Roman army. The introduction of castles and fortification reduced the meaning of the central army. Yet, the crusades would ignite warfare at the borders of the feudal lands against headens. In the late Mediëval period, with the destruction of castles with canons, would warfare spread all over Europe between kings and kings, kings and barons, barons and barons, barons and cities, people and barons etc...…… The driver of all bloody uphieval was power and money...…. All madness of war, connected with the mentality of the nobility, ended with WW1. The Nazi's imitated the nobility in a bourgeois way and caused WW2...…. Conclusion: bourgeois capitalism killed total warfare and the NOBILITY AND THE CHURCH, NOT THE BARBARIANS, WERE THE CAUSE OF THE BLOODY HISTORY OF EUROPE...………..
How much was worthing the spending power of the aforementioned wages compared to modern standards? What could you buy with the daily wage of an archer or a man-at-arms? Thank you for your answer...
Prices are odd, people pay next to nothing in rent but food is often a big part of wages, a third or so of the cash total.
Time period you are talking about was 1300.
They must have had knowledge abut the big empire of this man and maybe implemented its ways of fighting.
Maybe it was to encourage people to start training in this way but it did never catch on like the Mongoles, they did let there kids ride sheep to let them train riding and was using a bow from young age.
Combining this two was great in this time period but maybe it did not catch on in Europe do to the wast forestation and like you saying the horses did cost a lot and only 3 pence more when taking more risk.
Mounted archers is not as protected as foot archers behind pike-men.
Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (c. 1162 - August 18, 1227), born Temüjin, was the Great Khan and founder of the Mongol Empire, which became the ...
Source:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
Date a) 1236-1240
b) late 1240-1241
c) 1241
d) 1241-1242
e) 1241
f) 1242
g) 1242
Location Eastern and Central Europe
a) Modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus
b) Parts of Southern and Eastern Poland
c) Czech lands
d) Medieval Hungary
e) Kingdom of Croatia
f) Southern Austria
g) Bulgaria
Source:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe
Yes I know it is Wikipedia but the fact that they did use mounted horses archers in there army and was successful in Europe do effect others way of fighting.
What were the preferred weapons for English men-at-arms when fighting dismounted? (during the 100 year war) I am i wrong associating the pollaxe more with 15/16c?
Usually a spear (or sometimes they simply used their lances, shortened), with the sword and shield as backup until about the 1370s. After that we increasingly see the shield given up to focus on two-handed weapons.
Are the crossbow and bolt makers working on the same pricing model that printer companies use today
Knights and above were given an additional daily sum of 12d called the regard, to compensate for lost horses. Men at Arms also received additional pay. 100 Marks per quarter for every 30 Men-at-arms. A Mark is an accounting notation. A half Mark is 1/3 of a pound, or 80 Pence. A Mark is 2/3 of a pound, or 160 Pence. Soldiers had to give 1/3 of loot to their commander, and 1/9 to the King. Their commander gave 1/3 of his loot to the King as well. If a soldier looted 9 silver coins, 1 would go to the King, three would go to their commander, who gave 1 to the King. This would leave 5 for the soldier, 2 for the commander, and 2 for the King. A Centenar could profit handsomely if all his soldiers looted this successfully, as would the King. A soldier who captured an important knight would be set for life with the ransom.
If you're interested in early-modern warfare, I could recommend a 17th century German novel called "Simplicissimus". It's whacky and relatively religiously charged, but it feels astoundingly modern in many places. The characters are surprizingly vivid and their development feels justified.
I just researched what a G36 costs vs how much a lower rank German soldier earns. A G36 costs roughly 600€, a soldier earns roughly 2000€. So a soldier has to work for a G36 just over a week. So the relationship between the "bottom line" weapon and the "bottom line" soldier is still similar today.
If you're going to tell us they were in it for the loot, then please also go into detail about what type and amount of loot a man at each tier could have expected to receive after what length of time.
In the comments benjamin lammertz mentioned that mounted infantry were common throughout history. It struck me that while I know of lots of examples I have never seen a general history that goes backwards from WWII (where cavalry or mounted infantry, I don't know which, where used on the Soviet Front), and includes a fair assessment of the importance of cavalry and mounted infantry in the Allied victory in 1918. Wikipedia has a fair article, but it's a bit piecemeal.
Not as terrible as all that by your comparison. If a 6d crossbow costs a few hundred now, say £250, a 3d archer would be on over £30k in todays money, a Lance Corporal starting pay is £21,400 now.
6 pence/day is about 25 bucks in todays dollars, if my sources are correct. I used to have a shit job as a robot operator in a car factory. I got a slave wage of 10 euros/hour, plus night/evening shift pay, experience pay, station familiarity, etc, etc. totalling about 105,27 euros for 8 hours, double that for second shift, thats about 300/day. And I didnt have to risk my life or suffer from elements. I kind of understand now whats the reason behind all that pillaging and looting in premodern warfare.
Another book that briefly skims over the battle but goes over everything else behind the scenes in detail is The Age of Chivalry by Arthur Bryant
Modern privates don't get paid hardly anything, they also do not get any booty or loot. Yet they still choose to serve. I think assuming peoples reasons for serving are always purely economic (although that certainly plays a role.) Is a mistake, both now, and in the past.
Watched this video twice, I'm running an RP with a medieval-esque setting (technological regression in the extreme; aside from the odd artifact or indecipherable book, the state of the world is late 1400's in most respects and much of the modern world is myth. Does also take place on another planet, but that is a premise I borrowed wholesale from a friend's unpublished manuscript (I asked, he didn't care unless I published it)) Found this very informative, helps flesh out the world I have.
I think that if you work it out the pay wasn't that bad. 3p a day over 7 days is 21p. A rifle today can easily be over £1000. One of my shotguns is over £12000. Comparing a crossbow to a modern firearm, I don't think that they were on a bad wage.
In the subject of those supporting elements like sappers/engineers in a siege: My impression is that, most of the time, when you are erecting siege works and other jobs of that sort, the lion's share of the manpower you would devote to those tasks would largely come from your body of common fighting men anyway.
I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the logistical burden of dragging along a brigade of dedicated trench-diggers if I could just as easily tell 5,000--or however many--of my regular infantry to put their weapons down and grab shovels for a particular project.
If anything, I would expect the proper engineers to be a much smaller group of skilled technicians responsible for directing those building efforts when necessary, or designing structures that need to be built.
Similar logic goes for artillery, at least in some cases. Sure, I would want dedicated crews on my siege engines to some extent, especially building and operating complex machinery like a counterweight trebuchet, but if we're talking about a traction trebuchet, I could see even those being operated by a few trained specialists and number of just any other men who are available; men don't have to be specialists to pull on those ropes to hurl a stone, for example. If anything, they just need enough practice to coordinate their pulling, etc.
Just one correction... According to a price list by the University of California which coroborates much of what you're saying... General laborer warned 2 pounds a year which is 20 pence a month and they usually worked 6 days a week... So general laborer earned less than footmen and archers... It would have been lucrative for a laborer to join an army even without the loot... But yes the loot made it much better