MICHAEL PRESTWICH Money and Mercenaries in English Medieval Armies

MICHAEL PRESTWICH Money and Mercenaries in English Medieval Armies in ALFRED HAVERKAMP AND HANNA VOLLRATH (eds.), England and Germany in the High Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) pp. 129–150 ISBN: 978 0 19 920504 3 The following PDF is published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND licence. Anyone may freely read, download, distribute, and make the work available to the public in printed or electronic form provided that appropriate credit is given. However, no commercial use is allowed and the work may not be altered or transformed, or serve as the basis for a derivative work. The publication rights for this volume have formally reverted from Oxford University Press to the German Historical Institute London. All reasonable effort has been made to contact any further copyright holders in this volume. Any objections to this material being published online under open access should be addressed to the German Historical Institute London. DOI: 5 Money and Mercenaries in English Medieval Armies MICHAEL PRESTWICH The assumption that during the medieval period there was a steady progression from an economy based on labour serv- ices to one dominated by the use of money and the payment of wages does not command much accepta.J?.ce from present- day historians of the English medieval economy. Yet students of military organization have little doubt that such a develop- ment did take place with regard to the recruitment of armies. Where they differ from one another, is over the precise chronology of change. For H.J. Hewitt, the period of the Hundred Years War was decisive, for then armies came to be recruited by means of a contract system, and 'obligatory service was superseded by voluntary service' .1 J.E. Morris, writing rather earlier, considered that it was under Edward I that the nature of English armies had been transformed, and that in this process, 'the key was the use of pay'. He argued that in the later thirteenth century, 'the feudal system had to be supplemented by the use of pay'. 2 Professor J. C. Holt argued that the change was taking place still earlier, and that at the start of the thirteenth century King John 'was being compelled increasingly to en- sure the performance of the military service of his liege men by the provision of cash rewards. '3 The shift from feudal to paid service provides a disconcerting moving target. Matters become no clearer when the twelfth century is considered. J. Boussard pointed to the importance of mercenaries in Henry II's armies, seeing a military revolution take place in 1 H.J. Hewitt, 'The Organisation of War', The Hundred Year.5 War, ed. K Fowler (London, 1971), 78. 2 J.E. Morris, The Welsh War.5 of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), 68, 108. 3 Pipe Roll I7 John and Praestitia Roll z4-z8john, ed. R. A. Brown,J. C. Holt (Pipe Roll Soc., n.s. 37, 1961), 79. MICHAEL PRESTWICH his reign.4 Yet J. 0. Prestwich argued that paid troops, mercenaries, were quite as important in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries as they were a century later.5 Some scepticism is justified about a change which, according to these opinions, was clearly well under way in the early twelfth century, but was still not completed by the fourteenth. Did any such transition take place? Were there perhaps cyclical changes, with feudal service preferred in some periods, and paid troops at others, much as there were fluctuations in the relative importance of labour service and wage labour in the agrarian economy? Alternatively, it may have been the case that different systems of military obligation and recruitment co-existed side by side for a long period. This essay will seek to provide· some answers with regard to the cavalry, one element, but arguably the most important, in English armies. Although J. H. Round, at the end of the nineteenth century, considered that he had proved that the introduction of feudal military tenure took place in England under William the Conqueror, debate still continues.6 The issues concerning the date of this introduction, and the degree of continuity with earlier, Anglo-Saxon, military institutions, have perhaps tended to overshadow examination of the ac- tual importance of feudal service in its early stages in Eng- land. There is no full record of the performance of service prior to the thirteenth century. Only one writ of summons, the celebrated request for service from the Abbot of Evesham, survives from the Conqueror's reign.7 It is only because William II complained about the quality and suit- ability of the knights provided by Archbishop Anselm for one of his expeditions to Wales that it is known that a feudal 4 J. Boussard, 'Les Mercenaires au xii< siecle: Henri II Plantagenet et Jes origines de l'armee de metier', Bibliotheque de l'ecole des chartes, 106 (1945-6), 189-224. 5 J. 0. Prestwich, 'War and Finance in the Anglo-Norman State', Transactions of the Ruyal Historical Society, 5th ser., 4 (1955), 19-43. 6 J. H. Round, 'The Introduction of Knight Service into England', Feudal England (London, 1895). For two recent contributions to the debate, see J. Gillingham, 'The Introduction of Knight Service into England', Anglo-Nurman Studies, 5 (1982), 53-64;]. C. Holt, 'The Introduction of Knight Service into England', Anglo-Nurman Studies, 6 (1983), 8g-106. 7 Select Charters, ed. W. Stubbs, 9th edn. (Oxford, 1913), 97. English Armies summons had been issued.8 Stenton considered that 'it is easy to underestimate the frequency with which the feudal army was summoned by the Norman kings', and he pointed to the fact that even at the end of the twelfth century chroni- clers might well fail to record such a summons.9 Arguments from silence are always difficult, but it is striking that the evidence for mercenary and paid troops from the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries is very much stronger than that for feudal service.10 The total feudal service due to the English Crown con- sisted, at least in theory, of roughly 5,000 knights.11Whether such a level was ever attained in practice must be open to doubt. Certainly, references to scutage from the very end of the eleventh century show that it was possible to make a payment in place of service from an early date. By Henry II's reign, a proportion of the full quota, in place of the full total, might be requested. A well-known passage from Robert de Torigni's chronicle records the king's request in 1157 for one third of the total service due. Two years later, according to the same chronicler, Henry II preferred to take scutage from the bulk of his tenants, rather than requiring agrarios milites to go on the Toulouse expedition. Round pointed out, however, that record evidence showed that the majority of lay tenants-in-chief did in fact provide service on this occa- sion.12 The king certainly did not abandon feudal service. In 8 F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983), provides the most recent account of this incident. 9 F. M. Stenton, The First Century ofEnglish Feudalism w66-I I66 (Oxford, 1932), 177. 10 J. 0. Prestwich, 'War and Finance in the Anglo-Norman State', 1g-43, provides much evidence for the use of paid troops and mercenaries in this period. C. W. Hollister, The Military Q,ganization of Nurman Engl.and (Oxford, 1965), 116-25, discusses the evidence for the use of feudal armies in this period, and concludes that they were 'overshadowed by mercenaries or contingents of native Englishmen'. S. D. B. Brown, 'Military Service and Monetary Reward in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries', History, 74 ( 1989), 20-38, analyses both paid service and contemporary attitudes towards mercenaries. 11 Recent computerized calculations by T. K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), 64, 82-6, have provided confirmation for Round's estimate in hisFeudalEngland, 292. 12 Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R Howlett (Rolls Series, 82, 1884--g), iv. 193, 202; Round, Feudal England, 221. MICHAEL PRESTWICH 1166 he ordered the most far-reaching inquiry into feudal obligation that was ever carried out in England. His motives for doing so may have been in large measure fiscal, but knight service was duly detailed in the return.13 Feudal service was requested for the expedition to Ireland in 1 171, and for that to Galloway in 1186. At the very end of the reign all the knights in England, even if feeble and poor, were summoned, or so it was reported, to serve in France.14 If so, this makes a striking contrast with the policy of 1157. The period of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries was one of monetary inflation. Military costs were rising sharply. It was increasingly difficult for magnates to supply the very large numbers of men traditionally due when the king summoned the feudal host. The relatively brief period of service, forty days, was no longer in tune with the realities of warfare. What Richard I required was three hundred knights for a year to fight in France, not a huge host which departed within six weeks of mustering.15 By John's reign, if not earlier, the Crown had to be content with the tenants-in- chief appearing on campaign with a fitting contingent, which was much smaller than the traditional obligation. For the Irish expedition of 1210, for example, Geoffrey Fitz- Peter provided ten knights, not the ninety-eight and a third that he owed technically.

Load more