How were infantrymen recruited during the Middle ages?
- Thread starter PotatoKat
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Well one could say that there were just about two ways a common man could be. And then there are two means of recruiting men.
He could be a freeman, or he could be a servant. And a man could volunteer or be conscripted.
In Medieval terminology, these might be called as men at arms or sometimes mercenaries, and levies.
The serfs and peasants were subject to levy by their lords in times of war when necessary, and I imagine most non-slave classes were also. Hell, every person had some part to play in the service of war, even bishops or noblewomen.
The clergy could serve both ecclesiastic and military roles, while noblewomen paid scutage, which was money given to the duke or king, to pay for the costs of war or additional men.
Mercenaries were the landless nobles or freemen who were paid for their services in gold, rather than indentures in their service as were nobles and serfs.
So you have your volunteer mercs, and your levy conscripts lead by landed noblemen.
Of course, I may be simplifying it.
Edit: There was one more significant thing.
Retainers. Not all volunteers were mercenaries. Retainers are almost identical to the soldiers of a modern state. They had loyalty to their governors by ideology and birth, and swore oaths of loyalty. They were compensated in some way for this, and the social/economic and military roles were more intertwined than they are now.
These were men at arms. They were often less numerous than the other forms of troops though, much like you have a much larger pool of conscripts nowadays than you do of volunteer professional soldiers.
He could be a freeman, or he could be a servant. And a man could volunteer or be conscripted.
In Medieval terminology, these might be called as men at arms or sometimes mercenaries, and levies.
The serfs and peasants were subject to levy by their lords in times of war when necessary, and I imagine most non-slave classes were also. Hell, every person had some part to play in the service of war, even bishops or noblewomen.
The clergy could serve both ecclesiastic and military roles, while noblewomen paid scutage, which was money given to the duke or king, to pay for the costs of war or additional men.
Mercenaries were the landless nobles or freemen who were paid for their services in gold, rather than indentures in their service as were nobles and serfs.
So you have your volunteer mercs, and your levy conscripts lead by landed noblemen.
Of course, I may be simplifying it.
Edit: There was one more significant thing.
Retainers. Not all volunteers were mercenaries. Retainers are almost identical to the soldiers of a modern state. They had loyalty to their governors by ideology and birth, and swore oaths of loyalty. They were compensated in some way for this, and the social/economic and military roles were more intertwined than they are now.
These were men at arms. They were often less numerous than the other forms of troops though, much like you have a much larger pool of conscripts nowadays than you do of volunteer professional soldiers.
Between the 11th and 13th century, at least in France, there is also the communal system (maybe a really bad term to use for it in English, in French we call them "Commune" just translated it), they had more freedom and less taxes than other but had to organize their defense, train and equip troops themselves. In fact nobody at first planed this, it was the inhabitant of village/small town that reacted against the band of mercenary that pillaged the countryside when unemployed, once formed it was too much work for the lord or king to stop them. And so they created a charter that gave them some privilege against the right of the lord/king to mobilize them in time of war. They made reliable infantry more than most mercenary and did good on the battlefield, plus the fact that they were less costly than mercenary. At the battle of Bouvines (1214) between the French royal army and the German army the last men that stood against the French at the end were one of those communal infantry still in formation.
After it's really change with times and place, I will try to find some documents in the next day (but I fear that they would be in french or from french historian)
After it's really change with times and place, I will try to find some documents in the next day (but I fear that they would be in french or from french historian)
It was exactly that. From what I recall, the whole Bouvines business involved league of semi-independent cities that were due to this very fact maintaining large force of townsmen militia that trained regularly and were as close to professional army as one can get to it without mercenaries in medieval times.
Still, weren't the Brabant mercenary spearmen actually the ones involved in the famous last stand there?
Still, weren't the Brabant mercenary spearmen actually the ones involved in the famous last stand there?
Bouvines is a mess, the historical source for it change from place to place, in French at the royal court in the "philippide" Otto IV and his allies have all the component to have the worst army immaginable, disloyals knights, mercenaries, whore (yes that a composant of his army for Guillaume le Breton the chronicler), in other at the german side it's the contrary, and which belligerant where present change, at some place there is even John Lackland for them at the battle. Could be the Brabant mercenary in some that did the last stand. If you want to know more about it The Legend of Bouvines by Georges Duby (an excellent french historian) it's a small book, well done and there is a passage about this communal system in it.
In answer to the original question - there are many documents from the medieval era, of which the easiest to study in english relate to the english militia and commisions of array.
In england, each district (I can't remember exactly the names, shire, parish, county maybe?) was assessed and supposed to be able to provide a certain number of trained men, with a minimum of supplies for a given amount of time.
The retinues of the noblemen were another source of manpower, and they were usually the better trained.
This system extended into what is now france as at the time they were considered as much 'england' as the england of the british isles - the modern notion of land=nation/state was practically non existent in much of europe, rather it was 'to whom do we bear allegiance'.
In england, each district (I can't remember exactly the names, shire, parish, county maybe?) was assessed and supposed to be able to provide a certain number of trained men, with a minimum of supplies for a given amount of time.
The retinues of the noblemen were another source of manpower, and they were usually the better trained.
This system extended into what is now france as at the time they were considered as much 'england' as the england of the british isles - the modern notion of land=nation/state was practically non existent in much of europe, rather it was 'to whom do we bear allegiance'.
