Medieval Soldier Pay & Skirmishing vs Battles

[@WiseMasterNinja]

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

[@scholagladiatoria]

Really cool, thanks!

[@JVL2]

Good stuff, really nice to get some insight on what a soldier could get with the pay. I believe this is worthy of pinning.

[@hrotha]

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

[@wierdalien1]

WiseMasterNinja old english coinage was LSD

[@orsettomorbido]

So, common soldier could afford 1 best leg of pork OR some ale each day. That's not much D:

[@digitaljanus]

I see medieval crossbow-makers pioneered the printer toner scam.

[@scholagladiatoria]

lol

[@kam_iko]

digitaljanus unless of course, arrows from other manufacturers could be fired by these crossbows. which they could. (but still funny. liked :)

[@darionietlispach2470]

i guarantee you couldnt if the crossbow was made by apple ;-)

[@FoolishDoug]

Having to synchronize each bolt to the crossbow so it would load in the first place, no thanks.

[@Theduckwebcomics]

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?

[@PolluxA]

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)

[@Robert399]

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.

[@eldricgrubbidge6465]

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.)

[@hrotha]

But the physician would presumably be employed year-round, while the hobelar would be sort of a seasonal contractor, right?

[@PolluxA]

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?

[@bilibiliism]

And since henry III wont be sick all year around, I assume his physician could find some other part time job during spare time.

[@Mystakaphoros]

"mariners, or... seamen" *Matt coyly glances to the camera before continuing*

[@schlawa]

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.

[@JP-rf8rr]

That is interesting. Is there someplace someone could find said document?

[@willmosse3684]

Ahahahaha

[@finlaynixon2531]

Amazing 😂😂

[@DisdainusMaximus]

LOL that smile and short pause when you said seamen.

[@scholagladiatoria]

I don't know what you mean...

[@mattaffenit9898]

😓

[@ARR0WMANC3R]

Matt likes the booty.

[@mchernett]

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

[@rlbadger1698]

NO! 1pence in 1440 was $ 3.78 USD a crossbow was $45.38. futureboy.us/fsp/dollar.fsp?quantity=12&currency=pence&fromYear=1440

[@mchernett]

Rl Badger well clearly there are different ways to look at it. it's all about "context"

[@bilibiliism]

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.

[@nicolaiveliki1409]

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...

[@WiseMasterNinja]

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.

[@AlanLamb11]

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.

[@Ninjamanhammer]

How much was a courser?

[@TheOhgodineedaname]

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

[@josephdedrick9337]

thanks for the sources.

[@BIIGtony]

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).

[@hrotha]

Well yeah, it's a smart system for the 1%. Obviously these soldiers needed unions.

[@hjorturerlend]

Monarcho-Syndicalism x)

[@TheCsel]

or onions. If they had onions they wouldnt get scurvy.

[@wierdalien1]

BIIGtony kept going for at least another 400 years

[@Knoloaify]

+hrotha They needed to seize the means of campaining.

[@elgostine]

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

[@elgostine]

i dont use mods.

[@Dell-ol6hb]

elgostine true

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

Sorry, non-english guy here. How many pence is a shilling?

[@scholagladiatoria]

12 pence in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound.

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

Ok thanks! I needed that context ;)

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

So, those horses cost 46.66 crossbows each...

[@cabbage0dusk]

I'm English and I didn't even know this, i'm sure most people born after 1980 probably don't! lol

[@paulbenedict1289]

It means that a silver penny would be about 1,5g, really tiny. Smaller than US dime.

[@brotomann]

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".

[@thebobbytytesvarrietyhour4168]

I think it might have something to do with fighting the French, and saying to themselves "Wow Calvary is not great".

[@AlanH450]

if it was fighting on the continent, i assume it has a lot to do with getting them across water.

[@nindger4270]

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...

[@cadarn1274]

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.

[@inisipisTV]

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.

[@andreabondioli5579]

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!

[@colmhain]

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.

[@telemnarnumenorean8557]

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.

[@darrenprong2632]

"Trickle-Down Bootynomics" they were so ahead of their time.

[@spinakker14]

I think it has always been true in history that the richer always got more

[@yentasnivla]

Especially since back then (now to sometimes) the richer were seen as more valuable than the poorer.

[@CapitaID]

Or we're so far behind the times....

[@a5cent]

Nope, we just havn't become any smarter in 1000 years. Still just as stupid.

[@lastEvergreen]

Just a crumb of booty...

[@Muazen]

I leveled up. Got a mount.

[@Psiberzerker]

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.)

[@Alefiend]

Hobilars were more mounted infantry than they were light cavalry. They rode to battle and fought on foot.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Okay, basically similar to a mounted archer in this case then.

[@eldricgrubbidge6465]

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.

[@siegfriedgottz698]

so like dragoons? the horse is just for transportation?

[@Alefiend]

That's my understanding, yes. They *could* fight as light cavalry skirmishers but it really wasn't their thing.

[@AlanLamb11]

@@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.

[@ewittkofs]

I am a recent discoverer of your channel and love your blade discussions. However, this took your channel to a new level for me. The level of detail is something that I dream about when studying history but seldom find. As an American of European descent, the remnants of our physical heritage are virtually nonexistent here except in scattered museums or occasional journeys across the Atlantic. Thank you for bringing the period alive. I immediately ordered the book after watching the episode, even before writing this comment. 🤺😊

[@BeKindToBirds]

Very eye opening. I greatly appreciate your use of original sources as well as your general expertise. Truly you are opening a new chapter of our understanding after the loss we experienced from these ages to the modern ones

[@govic55]

Your videos gave me a different perspective on the medieval world. Thanks.

[@aldor9357]

So it was just like in Mount & Blade Good to know

[@SmigGames]

That's all I kept thinking. Better leave some more loot to those poor bastards then

[@JariB.]

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.)

[@SmigGames]

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.

[@Dell-ol6hb]

Aldor exactly what i was thinking lol

[@Spike294]

started to light-binge your videos and i'm at the point where i cheer when it begins

[@emirhamam527]

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.

[@cahallo5964]

This just proves that tribalism appears naturally regardless of the context.

[@MrVvulf]

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.

[@johnfluker1034]

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.

[@shkvorrel9660]

Like modern software manufacturers, they've obviously developed the concept of "crossbow as a service".

[@Knoloaify]

No wonder Ernest & Acton (E&A ) was unpopular with crosswbows enthusiasts.

[@minuteman4199]

slip of the tongue.

[@MartinGreywolf]

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.

[@AlanLamb11]

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.

[@magifitnessendole3907]

Your mind is on a another level. Thank you 🙏 for exploring truth and being a master teacher. You’re showing me that you have to mean to be disciplined and focused. You have a sense of humor and you can cut off someone 🦶 foot. Ty Master teacher, you have no idea how you enriched my life. Dallas, Texas 🐃.

[@nindger4270]

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 :)

[@Giloup92]

Your pronunciation of « chevauchée » is quite good.

[@scholagladiatoria]

thanks

[@holton345]

How is your pronunciation of squirrel (or écureuil, for that matter)? :-)

[@Unionjack-gi5xj]

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

[@Jinseual]

22:44 here we switched to a different Matt Easton. He sounds different and he wears a different shirt.

[@SonnyJim25]

Fabulous, as always. Very enlightening.

[@crocutable]

Thanks for sharing the pricing details, it really *does* help grant some perspective!

[@benway23]

That was great. Thank you for your work.

[@johnladuke6475]

Matt, what's with all these unfocused videos on fighting and history? I want more videos on sausage pronunciation and KZbinr heights.

[@scholagladiatoria]

If you actually do, then I can set up a Patreon account just for you. ;-)

[@wierdalien1]

scholagladiatoria in may sign me up

[@AaronLitz]

The term KZbinr made me think of some kind of human potato.

[@janedagger]

Ahhhh, I love history and this is right up my alley.. thank you.

[@IrisWatcher]

Another informative, interesting video! Thanks very much, I look forward to the next one!

[@christopherneelyakagoattmo6078]

So the levied soldiers were in it for duty and booty.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Basically yes.

[@Frostblast7]

Call of Duty.... and Booty.

[@jazzybeatssupreme]

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.

[@Fankas2000]

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.

[@SaintDaisley]

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.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes Juliet Barker and Anne Curry are really leaders in this field.

[@SaintDaisley]

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!

[@DarmokAtTinegra]

Fantastic video Matt. It may be niche to most of the world, but I found it very interesting and informative.

[@benwilkins6208]

Why does armor appear black in so many 15th century depictions?

[@scholagladiatoria]

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.

[@madhatten00]

black armor for the cold; if you watch game of thrones lol

[@charlottewalnut3118]

ben wilkins I’ve heard blackening steel makes it less likely to rust maybe that’s why

[@toddgreener]

This info is extremely timely for a medievalist fantasy novel I'm working on. Thank you!

[@khodexus4963]

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.

[@chrisdawkins3375]

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 🤣

[@kleinjahr]

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.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

I think we still give out prize money today even if there call.

[@sullivannix4509]

Very informative video. Well done, thanks

[@DerLaCroix1]

A sheaf of arrows/bolts (24) is a quite laborious process to make. Quality oak felled, dried, split,and cut to length. Turned on a lathe to size, slotted for leather vanes. Get them glued. Prepare and reinforce the end to fit the string. Forge and mount the tips. A lot of work for a lot of craftsmen. I think I remember reading that one shop only made about a hundred a day.

[@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7]

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.

[@brotherandythesage]

Swordsmen of the British Empire!

[@chrispza]

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”).

[@horseface31]

I love these little details

[@Smackosynthesis]

This was a fascinating video. Thanks.

[@antivalidisme5669]

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.

[@romainvicta1895]

Really interesting video, keep up the good work!

[@VDhorses1]

Love these kind of videos!

[@mindfulmarketing9414]

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

[@Verdunveteran]

Great video, Matt, on a very interesting subject! :)

[@mattlentzner2505]

Great great video. So informative!

[@ironanvil1]

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.

[@stephenede-borrett1452]

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.

[@Spaceonawall]

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.

[@kallmannkallmann]

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.

[@bilibiliism]

modern soildier dont pay for their horses.

[@CountArtha]

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.

[@AlanLamb11]

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.

[@juanmanuelcoria79]

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.

[@hatuletoh]

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.

[@edi9892]

_We love the booty_ Easton 2018

[@daaaah_whoosh]

So, I guess medieval soldiers were paid like waiters?

[@Peter1986C]

He is referencing US tipping culture.

[@Knoloaify]

+knightshousegames Parisian cafés.

[@brotherandythesage]

I think they typically got paid 3-4 times a year.

[@KeanKennedy]

Kind of evokes the line 'Tonight we dine in hell'

[@nickdougan394]

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.

[@flyboymike111357]

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.

[@scholagladiatoria]

It's great to hear that you enjoyed it. You can find a lot of period diaries and memoirs on Leonaur publishing.

[@flyboymike111357]

Thanks

[@garshaw8404]

I really enjoyed this video, I would really enjoy seeing more history recordings like this one from you. 'A day in the life' of a spearman, archer, man at arms etc would be fascinating. I have also heard a little of how English armies at this time were broken down into Lances (1 x Man at Arms, 1 x Archer, 1 x Spearman) but have not seen much about it. Medieval Army composition and organisation would also be very interesting. I also noticed you smile when you mention 'Seamen". If you think that is a funny word, just listen to how the Merchant Navy took this one step further! Merchant sailors have a book, similar to a passport in purpose, which is handed to the Captain upon joining a ship and used to verify crew members with Customs Officers. Upon leaving a ship at the end of an agreed duty period (known as being discharged) the Captain returns the book to the sailor. What is the book called? A 'Seamans' Discharge Book'........some things you just cannot make up!

[@Peldrigal]

Entertaining information citing sources: good work

[@robertgibson6687]

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.

[@mikeramberg7379]

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.

[@TanitAkavirius]

Not enough large open fields i suppose. Western Europe was mostly forests.

[@katylar]

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!

[@brotherandythesage]

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.

[@Intranetusa]

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.

[@jimmyotel6181]

Im impressed that Ive heard many of the names for these roles before because they are actually used in videogames, medieval total war most notably uses hobilar, mounted seargent etc. to name soldiers of the english faction.

[@Dagsschiller]

I really liked this video very much, very informative :)

[@ivanlookin7113]

Hobelar were skirmishing cavalry, so definitely fits to the topic :) Hobbys were an Irish horse breed.. Hilarious shirt, too, btw...

[@hectorvi1633]

Great Video! This is just the kind of information i want to get from her.

[@d.obrien2892]

No wonder it was such a big deal when commanders tried to limit looting!

[@drinks1019]

Love how horses of the 14th and 15th century that were considered expensive cost less than 1 modern pound.

[@JacobPlays136]

"hey folks mattiece in here scholar gladiatori" -KZbin auto captions

[@sakshampandey7342]

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.

[@JC839]

can you do more videos detailing battles? It’s so hard to find out what medieval battles were like, how the combat played out in a battle, tactics, ext.

[@earthman4222]

8:40 the first time "pay" is mentioned.

[@sillysailor5932]

Are the crossbow and bolt makers working on the same pricing model that printer companies use today

[@stepheningermany]

Interesting video! More like this please ;)

[@Riceball01]

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>

[@Knoloaify]

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.

[@gregtorok]

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.

[@Riceball01]

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.

[@allenthrasher4883]

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.

[@allenthrasher4883]

I once looked at a book on souvenirs for the US Army in WWII that was lying around a lbrary reading room. It said that looting and individual appropriation of military items was forbidden, but soldiers were taking miltary gear for themselves anyway and it was eventually decided that a desire for souvenirs was reasonable and a system was set up saying what sorts of things you could take home depending on your rank. E.g. a certain general was allowed to keep Goebbels' marshal's baton but a private might be entitled to a dirk or a pistol. Someone my parents knew had led a detachment taking over Hitler's mountain retreat and showed us a small silver beer tankard with AH and the Nazi eagle and swastika. The book did not discuss the question of looting of enemy or Allie civilian property. On the other hand, an art historian I knew who had been in the Monuments Men said that he had had opportunities to get rich from caches of art stolen by the Nazis but had refused them, but others had not. This rather than destruction may explain why some stolen masterpieces are still missing after all these years.

[@RonJohn63]

20:59 From the dawn of time until around 1900, human labor had been *much* cheaper than mechanisms. Heck, it's still true even today in most of the world.

[@karlkruger7310]

Matt ,the length of a piece of string is twice the distance ,measured from the centre to any one end.

[@whirving]

One thing to consider about low pay for the common soldiers of the time was that money wasn't in as much use for the lower classes as it is now. The economy of "commoners" was mostly trade and they had a high level of self sufficiency. Money was useful for things they couldn't grow, raise, trade, or make themselves. Special tools, livestock, and other fairly dear items. So a little went a long way.

[@MerlijnDingemanse]

Fascinating stuff

[@JayM409]

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.

[@Absimilliard78]

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?

[@Kamamura2]

4:59 "... and I often get paid per enemy combatant slain, and yes, ears or tongues are often required as proofs..." /s

[@dizzt19]

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.

[@AndrewHislop1066]

You sir have a new sub.

[@dbuyandelger]

I guess up here, north of the great wall we're used to having a lot of horses. Cost of a horse is not contemplated a lot in our history books, just that every warrior would have spare horse(s). Even today I think we have more horses than people. And I just did a quick search on the internet for how much horses cost, apparently it's all the way from 150 pounds to 4550 pounds.

[@kapitainnemoder5]

Are you a white walker?

[@AlanLamb11]

I have seen the rolls of soldiers at muster in England but then compared those rolls to the type of soldiers listed to be on campaign especially in the period of the 100 years war most of the spear soldiers and all levies on the English side were used as garrison troops and did not go on raids or participate in the field battles. It makes sense from a logistics point of view where each man adds nearly the same cost in food and water so the English would only take the more effective soldiers- the English archers were so popular because they were relatively effective vs their price. Locals defending against raiders or a full-scale invasion might well gather levies while the richer townsmen might fight as well equipped militia and the nobles that owed obligations would take their own privately funded retinues and a few of the lower-ranked of the warrior caste near where the enemy was expected and then negotiate which who would lead or how basically debate their relative social status and often the disputes that arose led some of the men to leave before any battle or caused problems in the chain of command in any battles or even the relief of a siege. The cost of well-equipped cavalry was even higher than represented just by looking at the cost of destriers because each knight would have a riding horse +baggage cart for the armour and other equipment in addition to 2-3 personal servants/valets that were only sometimes represented on the rolls that still required to be fed. The other thing to keep in mind is that soldiers weren't receiving pay until they actually showed up at the muster and were allowed into a particular campaign and would often only be employed for weeks to a few months out of any year so accumulating the funds for armour would normally be the process of several years if significant loot or ransoms were not gained. The sons of former soldiers would usually be vouched for as they are assumed to have some training and often a bit of their pa's equipment but it was possible for some 'middle' class militia to acquire a taste for war and move up the ranks as he gained wealth/experience and was able to equip himself at a higher level. Very low social status tenant farms, woodsmen, etc were very rarely accepted into higher ranks even if they somehow managed to accumulate the necessary equipment which most of the time was impossible because if they were off on campaign that means they weren't doing the farming or other tasks during the busiest time of the year and were instead playing lottery hoping to be present when looting was available. They would be viewed as risk-takers and unreliable for regular campaigns but could make a career in the mercenary companies of they displayed military skill or exceptional aggression/bravery.

[@tmrobotix]

What would a cheap loaf of bread cost? For the numbers to set in we need to check what the cost of living was, like a loaf of bread, an egg (or ten maybe), a chicken, those kinda things. Great video, keep it up Matt!

[@SimoLInk1698]

One interesting fact about soliders' pays comes from a nobleman from Naples, called Orso Orsini, which presented his "project" about the composition of the army to the king in 1478. Basically he used as a unit of measure not the people but the the "Paga", that is a pay. So, depending on your training and your equipment, you were worth a number of pays. For example a crossbowman, with his weapons, armor and the dude carrying the pavese was worth something like 3 pays, while your common levy infantryman from the countryside was worth half a pay, if I remember correctly. So the army was thought in the sense of quality, more than quantity.