Arrowstorm E-Book

Richard Wadge

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 618

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009

Beschreibung

This book chronicles the overwhelming importance of the military archer in the late medieval period. The longbow played a central role in the English victory at the battles of Crecy and Agincourt. Completely undermining the supremacy of heavy cavalry, the longbow forced a wholesale reassessment of battlefield tactics. Richard Wadge explains what made England's longbow archers so devastating, detailing the process by which their formidable armament was manufactured and the conditions that produced men capable of continually drawing a bow under a tension of 100 pounds. Uniquely, Wadge looks at the economics behind the supply of longbows to the English army and the social history of the military archer. Crucially, what were the advantages of joining the first professional standing army in England since the days of the Roman conquest? Was it the pay, the booty, or the glory? With its painstaking analysis of contemporary records, Arrowstorm paints a vivid portrait of the life of a professional soldier in the war which forged the English national consciousness.

Leseprobe

Acknowledgements

My lifelong interest in history led me to discover archery in the early 1990s. This book emerged from the combination of these two pursuits. I have known many archers over the years who have been generous with their time and opinions. Brian Annetts, Trevor Green and the late Margaret Tyson gave me generous advice and encouragement when I started archery. Steve Stratton has endured my historical musings, and helped me to think more clearly on several issues. He and Mark Stretton also cheerfully donned their fifteenth-century garb to appear in this book. Pip Bickerstaffe asked some of the questions which this book attempts to answer. Thanks to all my fellow archers, particularly the members of the Pickwicks Pepperpots.

My parents encouraged my study of history, particularly by supporting my postgraduate studies at Leeds University. Discussions with other history lovers have helped to keep the subject alive for me. Shaun Barrington and Tom Chidlaw of Spellmount have provided valuable advice from their experience as publishers. While researching the book the good humoured expertise of the staff at the Bodleian Library in Oxford made my task so much easier.

Finally, there is an incalculable debt to my family. My children provided a captive audience for historical storytelling at home and abroad. Eleanor has supported and encouraged me throughout the writing of this book without complaint and listened to me expound on medieval archery at all sorts of times. Grateful thanks to you all.

Contents

Title

Acknowledgements

Introduction

What was Life Like in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries?

PART 1: HOW AND WHY MEN BECAME MILITARY ARCHERS

Introduction

How were Armies Raised?

Professionals, Volunteers and Conscripts

Everyday Life as a Military Archer

English Archery in Foreign Service

The Rewards of Military Service for Archers

What were an Archer’s Wages Worth?

Conclusion

PART 2: THE SUPPLY AND MANUFACTURE OF BOWS AND ARROWS

Introduction

Equipping the Archers

The Manufacture of Bows and Arrows

International Trade in Bowstaves

Conclusion

Afterword

Appendix 1: London Arrays

Appendix 2: Developments in the Make Up of Retinues

Appendix 3: Bows and arrows received at the Tower of London

Appendix 4: Customs records of bowstaves imported in this period

Map of Trade Routes for Importing Bowstaves

Bibliography

Plates

Copyright

Introduction

Stories of the triumphs of the medieval English archer are widely known; how the bluff, no-nonsense English yeoman defeated armies of arrogant, aristocratic enemies. While there is some truth and great drama in these stories, they do not give us any idea why these men spent countless hours over many years practising archery so that they could be part of the English armies in the later Middle Ages.

This book is a history of the people who were involved in medieval archery, either militarily or in allied economic and manufacturing activities between roughly 1300 and 1550. The actions of kings and nobles, the events of the great battles are a part of this; they provide a structure. But this is not a conventional military history, an account of strategy, campaigns and battles. It is in part a history of military logistics in the modern sense of organizing supplies, but the scope is wider than just military matters. The main focus is on the ordinary people and how and why they took part in the great events of their time. This is not a chronological history, but instead a series of studies of related topics, which build together to produce an outline of the world of the medieval English and Welsh archers, and the economic framework that supported archery at the time.

Before delving into the world of the medieval archer it is necessary to outline briefly the social and economic conditions of the period. Medieval men and women were not greatly different to us in many ways, except that they lived in a smaller world than we do. A holiday might have meant a trip to the nearest big town or city to enjoy the religious parades or plays, no farther. One great difference between their lives and ours was the immediacy of death. While medical care was more competent in the Middle Ages than we sometimes think, life was much more precarious, even without war or major pandemics. Another fundamental difference was that active religious belief, or at least practice, was universal. The imminence of death was not the only reason for devotion. Church attendance was compulsory, which helped to make religious practice an integral part of life.

This investigation will include an analysis of how willing men were to become soldiers, how many of the archers became professional soldiers, and what was in it for them. In part this is revealed by a consideration of how English armies were raised and organised. Unfortunately, there is no personal narrative by an archer of the period to rival, say, Benjamin Harris’s account of being a rifleman in the Napoleonic wars, so we can only get a general picture of what motivated men to serve as archers. The one account that I am aware of is by Peter Bassett and Christopher Hanson, who both began as archers but later served as men at arms, and covers service between 1415 and 1429. This is fairly brief – valuable since the authors were participants in the events themselves – but it gives no insight into them as individuals and their feelings about military service.1 While it may not be possible to know the archers as individuals, it is possible to gain insights into their reasons for undertaking military service by looking at the opportunities and rewards available to them.

It is not just the ordinary people that we know little about as individuals; personal accounts of life in this period by noblemen and merchants are scarce. The chronicles of the churchmen provide vital, if not unbiased, narratives, but almost all of these give little consideration to the life and feelings of the ordinary people. The author of Gesta Henrici Quinti, a chaplain in the royal household, provides an important eyewitness account of the whole Agincourt campaign. While his purpose was to bear witness to the nobility and excellence of Henry V, he makes passing comments about the way he and others felt on the campaign, which gives a limited insight into the feelings of the archers. Because of this lack of personal accounts and a general lack of interest in the doings of ordinary men and women in the histories and chronicles, the main sources used must be administrative records. Occasionally, accounting records list rewards and pensions given to archers, which afford some clues to motivation. As well as records of the Royal household, there are customs and tax records, and administrative records of major cities such as London and York, which allow some understanding of local involvement in both war and the archery industry.

When a country makes a sustained military effort over several generations, as happened with England in the period of what we now call the Hundred Years War, an arms industry is born and grows. The second part of the book provides an account of the economic and manufacturing developments that underlay the military activity. It gives an idea of the dedicated trading networks that grew across Europe, as well as the economic developments within England that arose to meet the need for the regular supply of military archery equipment. This specialization was typical of the arms industries of Europe in the Middle Ages; though England developed an industry making the best military archery equipment in Western Europe using imported resources, but deliberately no export trade. The armourers of Milan and Southern Germany developed the reputation of producing the finest armour based on local raw materials, and exported their goods.

This sustained war effort put a strain on the economic and social development of England. Yet the mass of the population in the last quarter of the fourteenth century and most of the fifteenth century enjoyed a better quality of life. This seems paradoxical, when the English kings of the time were continually struggling to finance their wars. It has been estimated that in periods of heightened military activity – the 1340s and from 1415 to the end of the 1420s – perhaps 10% of the male population was directly involved in the war 2 and an undetermined number of women and children were part of the supply industries, with the concomitant commitment of money and material. This level of investment of capital, materials and people must have been a problem in the decades after the major outbreaks of plague, when labour was at a premium.

Throughout this period, England as a country covered much the same geographic area as it does currently. The king of England was crowned in a religious ceremony, and was regarded as being divinely anointed. This did not give him absolute powers; he had to take notice of Parliament, which gained influence through the period because of its tax levying powers. More importantly, as Richard II discovered, the king had to keep a good working relationship with a majority of the established magnates to be effective. Although the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries saw many political disturbances, including popular uprisings, royal depositions and a significant number of battles between the king and his magnates, England did not suffer from the sustained instability that afflicted France for example, where princely nobles feuded almost constantly for the throne. The exception was the Wars of the Roses from 1455 to 1487, but even this period included about 20 years of peace (interrupted by fighting in 1469 to 1471) under Edward IV and Richard III. There was no attempt by any English magnates to break free from England, in the way that the Dukes of Burgundy effectively managed to do in France in the fifteenth century.

While the people living in the towns and villages of England seem to have thought of themselves as English in a broad sense, local and regional identities were emphasised by quite significant differences in the English spoken in different counties. Though by the end of the 14th century English had just about ousted French everywhere. Scotland was an independent kingdom with its own divisions and foreign alliances. There was regular warfare between the English and the Scots throughout the period, though after Edward I’s reign the English kings made no sustained attempt to conquer Scotland, but rather tried to maintain some level of dominance through politics and periodic bloody battles. By the fourteenth century, Wales, which for much of the medieval period had been a collection of principalities and lordships, had been conquered, but was not fully integrated into England. The Welsh were not universally hostile to the English Crown, a number fought in Edward I’s armies of conquest, and significant numbers fought in the English armies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Cornwall, while politically integrated into England as a Dukedom, was differentiated from England by its language and culture. The English kings claimed overlordship of Ireland, and some of the magnates also held substantial estates in Ireland. The reality of these claims fluctuated.

The period of the Hundred Years War is one of great change. The Black Death, one of the greatest catastrophes of world history, descended. This on its own would have brought about change in the societies of western Europe: but this was also a period of chronic warfare. In this book there will be some account of the changes that may have arisen in English society through the sustained involvement in military archery.

References to money paid as wages, won as spoils or paid for the purchase of bows and arrows, are common within. All these prices are in English pounds sterling, twenty shillings to the pound, twelve pence to the shilling. The complication when assessing medieval prices and wages is not converting medieval shillings and pence to modern pounds and pence, but relating the converted figures to the cost of living, and so giving a realistic figure in terms of days or weeks worked. An outline is provided showing what the money earned by the archers could buy, including some tables of medieval comparative values, so that the reader can make the same estimations of value that the archer himself might have done, when he thought about how profitable his service was going to be. Any medieval weights and measures mentioned are converted into their Imperial equivalents.

Sometimes we can get a glimpse into the life of an individual, but in the end we cannot construct a series of biographies as can be done for the knights and men at arms. We are left, in Anne Curry’s words describing the victory at Agincourt, with ‘…the faceless majority of Henry’s archers.’ 3 While we may never know much about them as individuals, I hope that this account will leave an idea of their motivation, perhaps some glimpses of the sort of personalities involved. Of course much of this is an interpretation of fragmentary historical data, the story no more than a reasonable likelihood. As Francis Pryor pointed out, ‘History is personal, not absolute, and there is no such thing as absolute historical truth’.4

NOTES

1      Rowe, B J H A Contemporary account of the 100 years War from 1415–29. English Historical Review 1926. p.504-13.

2      Postan, M M (1964). The Costs of the Hundred Years War. Past and Present. 27 p.36.

3      Curry, A (2005). Agincourt: a New History. Stroud, Tempus Publishing. p.192.

4      Pryor, F (2005). Britain AD. London. p.235.

What was Life like in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries?

The men and women of Medieval England no doubt had very similar hopes and fears for themselves and their families as we do today, but they lived in a very different world. So before giving an account of the activities of the archers, bowyers, fletchers, stringers and merchants involved, we need a basic outline of the circumstances under which they lived. How many people lived in England; how long did they live for; how healthy were they; how and where did they live?

The nearest thing to a census in medieval England was the Domesday Book, which has enabled historians to estimate a population of c.2.2 million in 10861. As we move forward from this date, it is easier to describe, and to some extent explain, trends in the population than it is to provide exact numbers. By the early part of the fourteenth century, there had been a steady rise in the population from the Domesday baseline until it reached at least 5 million2. What is significant in this rise is that ‘The growth in population in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was largely the result of increases in the number of peasants.’3 These peasants tended to live in nuclear families of two generations, with family size limited in the poorer households by lower fertility and higher child mortality.4 Despite the struggle for subsistence that affected a noticeable proportion of the population, this population increase suggests that in these two centuries there were few bad harvests, and few significant epidemics, a circumstance which was to change markedly in the fourteenth century.

The first disaster in the fourteenth century was the Great Famine of 1315-22. This began with a poor harvest in 1314, with the harvests in the next two years being worse, if anything, largely because of heavy and persistent rain. Although the harvest of 1317 was better, there was another poor one in 1321. Things were no better for livestock farming; there was disease in sheep in 1315-6 and a ‘murrain’ affecting cattle in 1319-21. It has been estimated that about 10% of the population died as a result of this famine.5 Contemporary accounts strongly imply that not all these people died of starvation, since the better-off peasants, the clergy and gentry also died in higher than usual numbers. Diseases such as pneumonia and typhus would thrive among the famished, particularly given the wet weather for two years, and these would spread to the more affluent. However, conditions improved over the next two decades, and the population probably began to increase once more. By the 1340s, Edward III was able to raise large armies, in fact the army that landed in Normandy in July 1346 for what would become the Crecy/Calais campaign, was the largest transported to France at one time during the entire Middle Ages.6 He had his most dramatic successes in his wars against the French in these years, something that would not have been possible if the population at large was weakened by starvation and disease. But any recovery there was came to an abrupt end.

The Black Death, which affected the British Isles between 1348 and 1350, was a disaster on a scale that is difficult to comprehend today. It seems that it was either septicaemic or pneumonic plague, so that it was spread not only by the flea of the black rat, but to some extent from person to person as well.7 As a result, it is estimated that about 45% of the population died. The death toll was spread remarkably evenly across the country, although some manors suffered much less than others and some groups of people suffered less than others. In general, the clergy suffered badly, particularly the parish priests, although the higher clergy escaped much more lightly. Perhaps it is not surprising that the nobility seemed to escape the worst of the Black Death, one study showing them suffering a death rate of only 13%, about one third of the average for the population as a whole.8 But what helped to make a remarkably rapid recovery possible − at least in social and economic terms − was the different death rate between different age groups. It seems probable that while between 40% and 45% of young people in their twenties died, as many as 60% of the elderly died. This awful statistic means that there were plenty of economic opportunities for the survivors to better themselves.

The Black Death was the first great outbreak of the plague in the period, and it became endemic, there were outbreaks with grim regularity. The outbreak of 1361 was particularly cruel, known as the pestis puerorum, the children’s plague, it killed high numbers of the children of the survivors of the Black Death, regardless of social group. Somehow, people held society together. After this the plague did not necessarily strike nationwide, outbreaks could occur at a regional level through the rest of fourteenth century, and in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But it was not the only disease that caused epidemics in these centuries. The chroniclers’ accounts of the epidemic of 1473 make it likely that dysentery was the problem, while the ‘sweating sickness’ of 1485 was perhaps influenza.

The population stabilised at its new level, maybe about two and a half million, over the next 150 years or so, but quite why puzzles historians. Despite the standard of living for the survivors improving markedly, there does not seem to have been the trend towards earlier marriage and larger families that happened in parts of Europe. As Dyer puts it, ‘an English family culture had emerged which prevented population growth.’ He notes that through the late fourteenth century and into the fifteenth century, direct father-to-son inheritance of landholdings declined in some areas, and when there was direct inheritance the sons sold up and moved much more frequently than before the Black Death. Even where people continued to live on their agricultural holdings, they seemed to be more determined to move between villages. He describes it as ‘a restless and rather unstable society with its lack of kin solidarities and with a reduction in family support.’9

Population of England 1086–1600. Diagram derived from Dyer, C (1989) Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, p. 4.

The reduction in population resulting from these large scale outbreaks of pestilence led to the widening of work opportunities for women and young people. But it did this without shaking the fundamental male dominance of society. Women in medieval England had always worked in less financially rewarding work, such as making up sheaves at harvest time, or spinning in support of the cloth industry. In the times of labour scarcity they were able to improve the pay they received for their traditional work, and move into better paid craftwork such as weaving or metalworking. There are more examples from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards of women taking over the business on their husband’s death. It is probable that women in towns had more opportunities, both for huckstering victuals and working in support of craftsmen. Whatever their skill and competence, women in most cases could become neither formal apprentices, nor members of the craft misteries. The improvement in women’s earning capacity made them more self-sufficient and gave them more freedom of choice about marriage and remarriage.

One sign of the improvement in living standards was that the mass of the peasantry began to live in better housing. Throughout this period in England and Wales there was a slow trend towards the living spaces of humans and animals being in separate, commonly conjoined, buildings, rather than sharing the same living space. While there are some examples of peasants building new houses for themselves or members of their families in the first half of the fourteenth century, these efforts became widespread in the late fourteenth century, with a real concentration of activity between 1440 and 1520, according to dendrochronology.10 The cruck houses that they built at this time in the Midlands and some of the northern counties gave them considerable living space, and sometimes included two storeys at one end of the building. The quality of the construction work is shown by the number of these houses that have survived to become highly sought-after properties today.

How did the Black Death affect urban life? By the 1340s about 15% of the English population lived in towns and cities.11 After the plague, the expansion of towns tended to cease, and indeed a number went into steep decline. This may well not have been a direct consequence of the Black Death, since places such as Boston, Grimsby or Winchester had begun to decline before the cull. One of the consequences of the plague was that there were very few of the rural population who did not have a chance of getting an adequate landholding or wage labour to support themselves. So a combination of a stable rural population and there being sufficient economic opportunities for it to support itself in the countryside limited immigration to the towns. Some contemporary accounts recorded the view that rural life was healthier than urban, which may have helped to curb any drift to the towns.12 The health problems in larger towns and cities included high population density, inefficient sewerage and waste disposal and limited access to clean drinking water, all exacerbated by people living very closely with domestic animals. This provided an environment for disease to spread rapidly. While rural dwellers might also live in close proximity to animals, it was not such an unrelieved closeness. Finally, at times of economic hardship, the rural population had better opportunities for subsistence activities.13

Life expectancy in medieval England was affected by social standing, but less than might be expected. The nobility tended to suffer less from the plague because they did not live so close to the black rats and their fleas, but the gentry and the clergy seem to have died at a rate quite close to that of the mass of the population. There is no evidence of life expectancy being higher in some regions than others; although it is probable that life expectancy in the Northern Marches was lower in the periods of persistent military activity. Life expectancy in towns would almost certainly be lower than that in rural areas. The relative deadliness of urban living was not really resolved until the Victorian era. Childhood, especially early childhood, was the time of highest mortality for both sexes, while adult women also suffered significant mortality as a result of childbearing.

Period

Group

Life expectancy

Late 14th century

Essex Peasants

42 years at age 12

Early 15th Century

Essex Peasants

39 years at age 12

Early 15th Century

Monks of Westminster

29–30 years at age 20

Late 15th century

Essex Peasants

36 years at age 12

Late 15th century

Monks of Westminster

20 years at age 2014

Dyer found that peasants in Worcestershire could expect to live to much the same age as the Essex peasants at similar dates. While this sample is very brief, it shows that, despite fatal epidemic disease being fairly frequent, the majority of the English population who lived outside towns might reasonably expect to reach 50 years old, at least if they survived childhood. It also suggests that living in privileged conditions like the monks did not guarantee long life.

The discovery of the Towton war grave in 1996 has given us information about the ages of about 38 men involved in military service. The ages ranged from four who were between 16 and 20, to three who were over 46 years old. The average age of the group was about 30. This average age is higher than that found in some nineteenth-century war graves, and data from the Korean and Vietnam wars.15 While the Towton grave provides a relatively small sample, there is no reason to believe it is misleading, that it is a grave of second class conscripts, a group of older men scraped together to fill the battle lines. Indeed, of 28 skulls studied from the grave, nine were considered to show traces of well healed wounds, suggesting they belonged to experienced soldiers.16 It is important to remember that fighting in a medieval battle line required stamina, strength and agility. Considering the age range of this group we can assume that men in their forties in the fifteenth century considered themselves fit enough to undertake this dangerous activity. Eighty-eight of the skeletons that have been recovered from the Mary Rose are complete enough to allow their age in 1545 to be estimated. The average age of these probably falls in the mid 20s, with about 20% being 18 or younger,17 a marked reduction in age in comparison with the Towton group.

Apart from life expectancy, what can we glean about general health?18 Any comments made about the health of the people of medieval England will tend to underestimate the real level of illness because we only have skeletons to work from, and bones do not always show traces of serious illnesses. Also, any figures will be more accurate with regard to adults since disproportionately few child skeletons survive. The average height of men in the Middle Ages is about 170.6 cm or 5ft. 7in, slightly more than that of later centuries. The Towton group have an average height of 171.6 cm or 5ft 71/2 in., reflecting either the bias of a small sample, or a preference for recruiting bigger men for military service (although two of the 37 individuals identified were 162.5 cm or 5ft. 4in at most). The Mary Rose men show a very similar range of heights, with a smaller percentage of the taller men (5 ft 10 or more) than the Towton group, and their average is perhaps half an inch shorter. As regards dental health, perhaps one in four people in this period had a dental abscess and one in two a tooth with a cavity.19 Osteoarthritis was quite common among men, particularly in the upper body joints, reflecting the physical nature of life. Interestingly, the vertebral columns of the Towton men show a much higher incidence of changes linked to joint disease than those from other medieval cemeteries such as Wharram Percy.20 While sustained military practice could cause these changes, we cannot draw any firm conclusion. In general there are few signs of sustained malnutrition in the surviving skeletons, although there are signs of periods of poor nutrition in the development of many. Given that the diet of most of the population was defined by what was available in the particular seasons, and that many of the methods of storing food reduced the nutritional value, this is not surprising. Roberts and Cox suggest that that many of the less well-off might have suffered from vitamin deficiencies by the end of the winter,21 which would have the most obvious effects on growing children. The individuals in the Towton war grave show signs of this sort of deficiency; 32% showed evidence of iron deficiency, probably in childhood. Clearly they had matured into healthy adults, since this didn’t prevent them from having an active life subsequently.

Serfdom is a dominant feature of rural life from the Norman Conquest to the middle of the fifteenth century. There can be no doubt that serfdom could be oppressive and was an unfree state in law, but it was not slavery. The major difference between free and unfree tenants was that unfree tenants were under the jurisdiction of the manorial courts of their landlords in most matters, rather than the royal courts. Unfree tenants could be pursued by their landlords if they left their holdings without permission. Besides paying rents and entry fines (paid to take on a tenancy) the unfree tenants had to ask permission of their landlords when they wished to marry, inherit their tenures and marry off their children, and pay them dues for the ‘privilege’. They also owed labour dues to their landlords, which were usually well defined in both legal agreements and custom and practice. These latter were possibly the source of most dispute and resentment at local level, since, given the cycle of life in the countryside, they tended to fall most heavily on tenants when their own farming required most of their time.

It would be quite wrong to think that all unfree tenants were living in grinding poverty; many tenants held enough land to feed their families and have a surplus to sell. Equally, it would be a mistake to think of social and economic practices in medieval England as the same throughout the country. Firstly, while unfree tenure was present in all the English counties, the proportion of this type of tenancy varied, with it accounting for a little more than half the tenures in the northern and eastern counties, but a higher proportion in the midland and southern shires. Secondly, the burden of labour dues varied, often from landlord to landlord within a shire. One must not assume that serfs were poor peasants, struggling to make a living among their free neighbours. This was particularly true after the Black Death, in 1381 William Smith of Ingatestone for example, owned six cattle, five calves and some pigs, while being a tenant of sufficient land to maintain himself and his beasts.22 However, there was another side to the duties of, and opportunities for, the unfree peasantry: military service, particularly through the array system, which will be outlined later. The men were expected to have arms, however simple, in their houses, and to make themselves available for military service at the king’s command.

The fifteenth century eventually saw the demise of serfdom, with the Black Death probably being the major factor. As previously noted, the population of England rose steadily until the first decades of the fourteenth century and this led to land hunger. This benefited landlords: they could increase entry fines and rents, knowing there were more potential tenants than landholdings; they could encourage the clearance of forest and marginal land to bring it into cultivation and so have more paying tenants; they could start to commute labour services for cash payments, knowing that there was plenty of labour to be hired from those who did not have enough land to live off. The other advantage of commuting labour services was that it saved the landlords the trouble of getting their recalcitrant tenants to perform these services. As a result, commutation was widespread.

After the Black Death, potential tenants and labourers were scarce, so that the balance of power between them and the landlords swung in their favour. Tenants could refuse high entry fines and rents and go to a landlord who offered them a better financial deal. This could also lead to them losing their servile status, since the new landlord would either not know or not care about it. At the same time, wage labourers looked for work from whoever paid the best wages. While the landlords could do little about the decline in their rental income when there was a real shortage of prospective tenants, they and other employers tried to do something about wages. Landlords tried to reinstate labour services from their tenants to solve their labour problems. However, since the main enforcers of this were the Reeves, who were usually part of the village community themselves, this reversal was not generally successful. As part of the efforts by the employers of wage labour, whether landlords, merchants or guildsmen, to regain their control of the labour market, they used their strong representation in the Parliamentary Commons to encourage and support the passing of the Statute of Labourers in 1351. This attempted to set wages at pre-Black Death levels, limit the right of wage earners to pick and choose the work they took on, and penalised both those who sought and those who paid higher wages.23 The court records, unsurprisingly, contain more cases of men and women being charged with asking for or receiving higher wages than the Statute allowed, than cases brought against those who paid the higher wages. This repressive Statute was one of the causes of the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381, which, although unsuccessful in the short term, emphasised to the governing classes that the broad population of the South East and East Anglia at least would not quietly accept oppressive economic and social control.

Edward I completed the military conquest of Wales, a process started very soon after the Norman Conquest.24 Because this was such a long, drawn-out process, some parts of Wales, much of the south and Flintshire for example, were under English lords for much longer than the heartlands of North Wales. In addition, Welsh princes and nobles periodically allied themselves with the English kings. So there might be a revolt by some Welsh at the same time as other Welsh gentry and archers were serving in the English king’s army, as happened during Glyndwr’s revolt in the early fifteenth century.

The power of the great English Lords, particularly within their estates, was considerable, and no English king could afford to attack or discount these men as a group. Inevitably, individuals fell out with the king periodically, sometimes fatally, as did Henry Percy in 1403. The rising power within the political structure throughout the period was Parliament, and especially the Commons, with their power over the granting of taxes. Although this sounds potentially damaging to the cohesion of the kingdom, the King’s administration through the Sheriffs and the King’s Justices helped to counteract the tendency. Though not in accordance with the classic model, it was an early example of the separation of powers within the state that Montesquieu recognised in Great Britain 300 years later, and recommended.

Religion was an integral part of medieval life. Besides the descriptions of archers praying and seeking blessing before battle that suggest this was deep seated, the Church also ensured that the people had at least one day’s rest a week. This was expressed in a prohibition against working on Sundays to allow church attendance. There was also a large number of religious festivals and holidays that gave medieval men and women rest from their labours, between forty and fifty a year in addition to Sundays in the fourteenth century. These festivals were not imposed on the people by the church, but enjoyed and promoted by them through parades and play cycles.25 Between the Black Death and the Reformation, people in both town and country celebrated these festivals with increasingly complex and lavish displays. England rivalled Italy in its piety in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; it is very easy for the many sons of the Reformation in Northern and Western Europe (and the US) today to misapprehend this: England did not stand apart from Catholic Europe, it was central to it. In the words of Peter Ackroyd in his fascinating book, Albion: The Origins of the English Imagination, ‘Life was only the beginning, not the end, of existence and thus could be celebrated or scorned as one station along the holy way.’26 A fine outlook for a military archer.

NOTES

1      Dyer, C (2003). Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain 850–1520. London. Penguin. p 95

2      Dyer, C (2003) op cit p.233

3      Dyer, C (2003) op cit p.155

4      Roberts, C and Cox M (2003). Health and Disease in Britain. Stroud. Sutton Publishing. p.225

5      Dyer, C (1989). Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. p.267

6      Ayton, A and Preston, P (2005). The Battle of Crecy 1346. Woodbridge, Boydell Press. p.15

7      Platt, C (1997) King Death; the Black Death and its Aftermath in Late Medieval England. London, UCL Press. p.33

8      Platt, C (1997) op cit pp.49-50

9      Dyer, C (2003) p.277

10    Dyer, C (2003) p.356

11    Ayton, A and Preston, P (2005) op cit p.217n

12    Platt, C (1997) op cit p.33

13    Roberts, C and Cox, M. (2003) op cit p.235

14    Figures from Dyer, C (2003) p.275

15    Fiorato, V, Boylston, A and Knusel, C (editors) (2000). Blood Red Roses. The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxford. Oxbow Books p.52-3

16    Fiorato, V, Boylston, A and Knusel, C editors, op cit p.94

17    Stirland, A J (2005) The Men of the Mary Rose. Stroud. Sutton Publishing. p.81-2

18    These comments owe much to Roberts, C and Cox, M. (2003)

19    Roberts, C and Cox, M. (2003) p.265

20    Fiorato, V, Boylston, A and Knusel, C editors (2000), p.67-8

21    Roberts, C and Cox, M. (2003) p.248

22    Dyer, C (2003) p.288

23    Dyer, C (2003) p.283

24    It is probably more accurate to say that the process was started by the English kings of Wessex, but they seemed unable to hold significant areas of Welsh territory in any sustained way, merely exercising some level of overlordship at times.

25    For more about these festivals, and what is often called the ritual year, Hutton, R (1996) The Rise and Fall of Merry England. Oxford University Press, is a good survey for the end of the period covered in this book.

26    Ackroyd, P (2002). Albion: The Origins of the English Imagination. London. Chatto & Windus p.124

Part 1

How and Why Men becameMilitary Archers

Introduction

The ways in which the English armies were raised throughout the time of the Hundred Years War (and some of the subsequent campaigns of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, which could seem like continuations of it) can reveal motivation for military service. While this section will concentrate on service in English armies, it will also include a brief survey of English archers serving foreign employers.

In some ways it is misleading to call many of the armies English, since they always included a number of French, Flemings and Germans as men at arms, as well as large numbers of Welshmen serving as archers and infantry. In the fifteenth century the armies even included small but noticeable numbers of French archers. These armies were English because they served the king of England and his interests, and their ultimate paymaster was the royal administration.

Most of these armies were not led by the king or a royal prince, or even directly recruited by a member of the royal family. In practical terms they were employed by their commanders, who could be one of the great nobles of the realm, or just as likely a knight or man at arms. This gave the archers a lot of choice about who they worked with, where, and for how long.

Increasingly, the archers became professional soldiers for a longer or shorter part of their working lives commensurate with the rewards archery provided, making it sometimes a worthwhile career choice. After an account of the potential scale of these rewards, there is a brief attempt here to indicate what an archer’s income from war might have been worth in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This will show how the archers themselves might have weighed up the rewards of military service, and give an idea of what they might have bought with their military wages.

How were Armies Raised?

The renowned military archers of medieval England and Wales became a major part of armies of the time through an established but evolving system for raising these forces. By the time of Edward III, the English king could only wage war if he, and the purpose of the war, had some measure of support from the people at large. While the king could call on the magnates and those knights and others who held property or position directly from him for military service on occasion, these men would still expect some kind of pay and expenses. If he was planning any sustained military endeavour he needed the compliance of the Commons in Parliament, and the taxpaying population at large. The heart of the matter was not necessarily money; rather, could the king raise sufficient willing, competent soldiers to wage war successfully? It is this question of willingness to serve that colours any account of how medieval English armies were raised. This is all the more significant since a high proportion of the population in the fourteenth century were classified as serfs, legally defined as unfree. The nature of serfdom was touched on in the previous chapter; it was a matter of which courts individuals could use and did not imply that they were the property of their lord or without individual rights. The serfs, in common with the other social groups in medieval English society, owed a duty to their communities and their lords, and ultimately to the king, and could reasonably be expected to do military service. This was a clear legal duty, which could be enforced with penalties including fines and even the threat of forfeiture,1 and was the basis of raising of armies at this time.

In England, this duty can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon times, with service in the Fyrd. There has been sustained academic debate about the continuity of the Fyrd tradition into post-Conquest England, and the consensus is that the Norman and Plantagenet kings exploited the tradition. These kings described and developed this duty of military service in the Assizes of Arms and Statutes associated with them. These divided the male population aged between 15 and 60 into groups defined by financial status. Members of each group were expected to serve in person, armed to the appropriate standard for the group. The English kings were thus sufficiently confident in the stability of the broad population of England to require their subjects to have arms in their houses and be competent in their use. English law encouraged a wide range of men to try to develop the skills necessary for military service.

These military duties as laid down in the Assize of Arms of 1230 begin to include the development of military archery. This Assize stated ‘… he who has goods to the value of 20/- shall have a bow and arrows, unless he lives in our forest, if he lives in our forest and has goods to the value of 20/- he shall have an axe or a spear.’2 This was expanded in the Assizes of 1242 and 1253 until the Statute of Winchester of 1285, which was for the most part a revision of these earlier Assizes of Arms, consolidated these developments.3 The Statute laid down what type of soldier each man should serve as, and the weapons that he should have in his house. Later generations looked back to it as the measure of legitimacy with regard to the demands for compulsory military service made by their kings.

Given the scale of his military activities, Edward I might have been expected to have brought about major changes to the recruiting system in England, but this was not the case. His main contribution was a pragmatic one, extending the paying of royal wages for arrayed troops so that they received them from when they reached the place of muster.4 His concern was to get predictable numbers of troops to where he needed them on time, and payment of wages from arrival helped. The real developments in the system were brought about by his father, Henry III, a much less successful military figure. Firstly, in 1230 he extended the duty of military service to include the unfree, and divided freemen and town burghers into two wealth categories, those holding 40/- of goods and those holding 20/-.5 In doing this he widened the pool of potential fighting men considerably, which contributed to the effective development of the English army over the next two centuries. Secondly, his Assize of Arms of 1242 brought about changes in the types of arms the various financial groups should hold, and, most importantly for the purposes of this book, recognised the importance of the bow and allocated it to those holding land worth more than 40/-. The main regulations of the Statute of Winchester were:

Every man between fifteen years and sixty years shall be assessed and sworn to armour according to the quantity of their lands and goods; that is to wit from £15 land or 40 marks goods a hauberk, sword, knife and a horse: £10 lands or 20 marks goods a hauberk, sword and a knife: and from 40/- land and more unto 100/- of lands sword, bow and arrow and a knife: and he that hath less than 40/- yearly shall be sworn to keep gisarmes, knives and other less weapons: and he that hath less than 20 marks in goods shall have swords, knives and other less weapons: and all others that may shall have bows and arrows out of the Forest and in the forest bows and boults.6 And that view of armour [a view of arms in the records discussed below] be made every year two times.7

The Statute of Winchester is the final stage in the transformation of the purpose of the Assizes of Arms. In 1181 the purpose was as much concerned with local law and order, by insuring that law abiding men were well armed, as it was with providing a pool of potential soldiers. By 1285 this had changed and the Assize had become a key part of the English military system, aiming to ensure that the Commissioners of Array had a large number of men with military equipment to select armies from.

Edward III followed the traditions of his grandfather Edward I, and his father, Edward II in abandoning the demand for unpaid compulsory military service for infantry serving outside England. Edward I, and less successfully Edward II, had made extensive use of the feudal system to raise armies for their campaigns. In doing this they put particular pressure on those wealthy enough to be eligible to be knights, and antagonised the mass of the population with the financial demands of equipping and paying the armies. All classes of soldier served without royal pay in England, relying on their own or their community’s resources, but once they crossed to Wales, Scotland, or went further afield, they could claim pay. The first Parliament of Edward III’s reign in 1327 discussed the matter at length and petitioned the King not to follow his forbears’ practices, including that of expecting the city or county to pay arrayed troops’ wages or food costs outside the county boundaries. A consensus arose in the following years such that conscripted men could only be required to serve without royal pay in the case of foreign invasion, and even then only with the consent of Parliament. But if they were paid by the king then they were expected to serve wherever they were sent.8 It is clear that Parliament felt that this agreement was not always followed by the king and his officials since ‘in 1384 the Commons requested that Edward III’s ordinance against military service outside counties at other than the King’s cost be observed.’9 The request may not have been heeded, since in 1386 the orders for the array of archers from twenty-three counties specifically said that the ‘…archers should be brought to London at the cost of the county…’10 In this struggle over who should pay the travel expenses to the muster point, it was the archers who lost out, since they had to live without pay until the argument was settled.

The real change in the system for raising armies was the rapid development of the use of indentures to raise companies of soldiers. As paid service in English armies of the period became the norm, there was a tendency towards the recruitment of smaller armies than had been the case in Edward I and II’s reigns,11 inevitable anyway because of the Black Death.

THE OWNERSHIP OF ARMS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHERY SKILLS

It is difficult to estimate how rapidly archery skills developed, and how widely they spread over the country. The Norman kings and magnates soon came to use Welsh archers, exploiting their existing military archery skills. It seems that men of the English shires had not developed similar skills to any comparable extent until the thirteenth century. There were clear exceptions among particular occupational groups, such as foresters and parkers, who relied on archery skills as part of their day-to-day work. Archery skills had certainly developed in the northern counties by 1244, when a writ summoning infantry from these areas specified that they be arrayed with bows and arrows.12 In 1260 Hugh Bigod The Justiciar and Philip Bassett were ordered to raise men armed with bows and arrows from Kent and bring them to the king at Dover.13 In 1266 ‘300 of the best archers from the Weald’ were arrayed for coastal defence duties.14 In 1274 we have an early example of a group of archers in the service of a nobleman, in this case John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, being used to promote his interests against another landholder. Surrey was authorised to raise ‘…200 good archers at our cost…’15 to serve the king, under Surrey’s command. Eight years later Edward I is having to order the Sheriff of Sussex to remove ‘the men of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, archers and other armed men…’ from Robert Aguilon’s manor.16 In 1277 Edward I had a bodyguard of 100 Macclesfield archers. In 1298 Robert of Werdale, described as an archer, was admitted to the Register of the Freemen of York.17 By becoming a Freeman, probably by paying a fee, Robert was able to pursue his trade in the city. The question is, what trade did he pursue? Since he was a professional archer, he may have been in York taking employment as a paid substitute at times of array, if so it is perhaps surprising that he registered as a Freeman. Alternatively, he may have been working as a professional archer involved in teaching and training the citizens in archery for both peace and war, which could well have necessitated him becoming a Freeman. However this is all speculation, the only certainty is the presence of a professional archer in York at this date.

Some insight into the spread of military archery skills among the English male population at large can be gained from the records of the Views of Arms. One from Reading in 1311 recorded at least 276 men, but only 41 had bows and arrows (barely 15%), the majority had just axes and knives. Another at Bridport in 1319 recorded about 180 men, none of whom had bows.18 In the 1330s the percentages of bowmen recorded in both Norfolk and Middlesex were also negligible.19 But archery skills seem to have been more prevalent in the northern counties. The West Riding of Yorkshire alone provided 359 foot archers and some mounted archers in 1334, and Lancashire provided 232 mounted archers and 653 foot archers in 1335.20 In both cases this was for Scottish expeditions. The figures from these two counties and London, in contrast to the much lower ones from some of the more southern counties, help to explain how Edward III was able to raise at least 5000 archers through the array system and have another 2800 or so mounted archers serving largely in retinues in 1346 for his army in northern France. He had at least 1000 archers serving in Aquitaine, which still left enough archers in England for them to make a battle-winning contribution at the Battle of Neville’s Cross.

The records of a View of Arms held at Norwich in 1355 gives us an idea of the proportion practising archery in a city.21 Medieval cities in the British Isles were fairly small and more closely linked to the surrounding agricultural areas in the Middle Ages then is the case now. This lists the men who responded to the Justices calling out of the men of the city aged between 16 and 60 to discover the number available for military service and their level of arms.

Leet of Norwich

Men with full armour

Accompanying these

Men with half armour

Archers

Unarmoured men

Conesford

13

3 archers

19

6

100

Bostrode (a sub leet)

80

Mancroft

43

5 archers

2 armed men

23

57

c.90

Wymer

58

23 archers

9 armed men

14

46

c.210.

Total

114

31 archers

11 armed men

56

109

c.480

•  A Leet was a division of Norwich like a ward in other cities.

•  Full armour was usually a helmet with aventail, plate and mail on upper body and arms.

•  A number of the men in full armour brought other fighting men with them (third column).

•  Half armour was usually mail, breast plate and a helmet with aventail.

•  Archers brought bows and arrows, all had knives and many had swords. The number of arrows they had is not specified.

•  The unarmoured men brought a variety of weapons, All had a knife and cudgel, while about a third also brought a sword, axe or spear as well.

•  A number of the armoured men, half armoured men and archers also brought servants.

•  In Wymer Leet Geoffrey de Hapton, serving as an armoured man, brought his brother Stephen as an archer, and the archers included two bowyers, two fletchers and a smith.

There were 801 men who responded to the summons, of which 140, or 17.5%, were archers. Perhaps more surprising is that 170, or just over 21%, had their own armour. Since the View of Arms record doesn’t include any references to horses these men may have been showing their availability to serve as men at arms, or in the category of armoured men (armoured infantry, superseded by the men at arms who fought on foot in the English tactical system), a deployment rarely used in Edward III’s armies serving in France.

These figures are post-Black Death, and so these are the sort of the numbers of men who would be potentially available for service for the rest of the fourteenth and much of the fifteenth century, given the relative stability of the population figures for the period as noted in the previous chapter.

Despite the proportion of Norwich men who had bows, Edward III’s armies of the 1340s, whether made up of arrayed or indentured men, were raised disproportionately from the counties. Townspeople represented about 15 % of the population of England at this time, but not of the armies.22 However, it is likely that these figures are on the low side since there may have been some evasion of the View, and there were almost certainly a number of Norwich men, mainly archers no doubt, serving in retinues at the time. So it is difficult to draw a clear conclusion about any positive effect that Edward III’s successful campaigns may have had on the number of men practising archery with a view to undertaking military service, although these figures for archers are noticeably higher than those from Reading noted above.

So what can we say about the number of reasonably competent archers in England in the 1330s and 40s, before Edward III’s successes encouraged men to practise their martial skills? Despite the encouragement contained in the Statute of Winchester, relatively few men with landholdings valued at less than 40/- seem to have taken up the bow, in the southern counties at least. It seems that archers were not as freely available in this period as might be thought, but that those there were took their military duty seriously, as is shown by the numbers involved in the campaigns of 1346–7.

The Statutes and Assizes of Arms included the expectation, not always explicit, that men would practise with their weapons. Legal obligation and a sense of duty to the community alone were probably not an adequate explanation of why men practised archery consistently over a number of years so that they could sign up as an archer. The various other motivations and pressures that worked on men to encourage them to serve as military archers are explored in later chapters, particularly the rewards. However, by the 1360s the king’s government felt that this assumption that men practised archery needed strengthening by legal obligation and started to issue a sequence of statutes compelling archery practice (see Professionals, Volunteers and Conscripts). You can’t practise without a bow. The evidence as to how many men observed their legal duty to keep bows and arrows in their houses in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries before the stimulus provided by Edward III’s victories is patchy. The records of the criminal hearings provide some evidence of men owning bows. However, it is very unusual for the court records to include any description of either the bows or the arrows, so we don’t know if the crimes were committed using military type equipment or that more suited to hunting or practice. The records of the Derbyshire Eyre of 1281 included three murders committed using arrows. In only one case, that wherein Walter of Oxford shot Richard of Charleton in the stomach with an arrow killing him instantly, do the records clearly state shot, in the other two cases it just says killed with an arrow, which could mean stabbed with it.23 In all three cases the perpetrators fled, so they were declared outlaw and their goods were seized. While the record makes no mention of any land they may have held, the value of their chattels suggests that two of them were no more than middling peasants at best. This is very much in line with the provisions of the Assizes of Arms in force at the time. There are accounts from the court records for most forests and deer parks of poachers regularly using bows and arrows, but not to the exclusion of other weapons and techniques. A later clue comes in an incident during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381: the rebels, many of whom were Londoners, destroyed John of Gaunt’s palace of the Savoy and its contents. ‘They seized one of his most precious vestments, which we call a “jakke”, and placed it on a lance to be used as a target for their arrows.’24

COMMISSIONS OF ARRAY