Medieval News

[Patrice]

I feel very unhappy to look at this picture…

This guy looks like what I feel when I must go to the dentist.

[Patrice]

Ooops wrong modify/quote selection and unable to delete second message!

[Paul]

Eh? That has nought to do with an arrest warrant.
It is just some people talking about The Prince. 

Bizzare..
the link did contain the arrest warrant story...never mind..here it is again 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21470077

[Paul]

Determine the future sex of an unborn child with powdered hare
http://livingthehistoryelizabethchadwick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/todays-research-snippet-boy-or-girl.html

[Paul]

Interpreting Warfare and Knighthood in Late Medieval France: Writers and Their Sources in the Reign of King Charles VI (1380-1422)
In PDF form, 270 plus sides on Holy war and selfdefence as "just war" discipline, wages etc
http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0005061.pdf

[Paul]

The fairy tale life of queen Aelfthryth
http://saintssistersandsluts.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/aelfthryth-queen-of-england/

[Atheling]

It was very common, for the typical medieval 'knight', death on the battlefield was far less likely than for the average soldier. It is believed that one of the factors which persuaded Henry V to fight at Agincourt, was that if he lost, the ransoms would bankrupt England... he'd already virtually emptied the coffers to finance the campaign in the first place.

Very interesting.... Do you have a primary source for that mate (the reason Henry V may have stood and fought at Agincourt that is)?

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

Very interesting.... Do you have a primary source for that mate (the reason Henry V may have stood and fought at Agincourt that is)?

Darrell.

Well there won't be a primary source, as Henry was hardly going to set down any reasoning which didn't include his divine right to be King of France, and that the victory was therefore assured by God...

The perilous state of royal finances is more easily found in secondary sources however;

Curry, A., (2008) The military ordinances of Henry V: texts and contexts, in Given - Wilson, Kettle and Scales (eds), War, Government and Aristocracy, pp. 214‐49.
Mortimer, I (2010) 1415: Henry's Year of Glory.
Given-Wilson, C., (1986) The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity: Service, Politics and Finance in England 1360 -1413.
Newell, R.A. (1921) The War Finances of Henry V and the Duke of Bedford, English Historical Review XXXVI(CXLII): 172-198.

In short, Henry's income for the year 1415 was in the region of £60,000. Once his household, the pay of the existing garrisons in England and Calais, and the actual campaign costs (c. £75,000) were subtracted, he was in the red by £55,000 at the end of the year. Bear in mind that much of his income didn't appear until after harvests were collected, so at one point he was possibly looking at debts of £100,000. Throughout his reign he was to default on between 2-6% of his domestic loans and around 35% of his foreign ones.

Having already borrowed to the hilt for the campaign, where would the money have come from to pay his ransom? Money had been loaned by, or was was owed to, his chief nobles, who in the event of their capture, would also have expected reimbursement to pay part of their ransoms too. Surrender was really not an option.

It's also a fairly common assumption that the preponderance of archers in the army was largely because they gave best value for money. You could get 2-3 archers for the cost of a man at arms and if you were planning to conquer, garrisons largely composed of archers were far less expensive than ones with the more-usual archers to men at arms ratio. This trend was to continue until the end, even to the point of paying a new class of 'dismounted men at arms' in garrisons, to save the 4d extra a mounted one was expected to be paid.

[Paul]

Another medieval skelly found under a car park....
http://edinburghcentre.org/news/ECCI-Knight-News-Storm

I like the "Play to the audience" comment from the Archeologist on the vid on the next link
"if he was a Knight, he would have had to have been quite a big chap to wear all that armour"
http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/magazine/217532-medieval-knight-discovered-buried-in-edinburgh-car-park/

[Paul]

A new look at the life and Trial of Joan of Arc..´The most damming Charge against her was apparently one of transgressing gender rules..
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/pi/article/view/1604

[Paul]

Which king next..the hunt for King Stephen
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_gazette/news/2013/march/9/king_stephen.aspx

[Patrice]

Which king next..the hunt for King Stephen
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_gazette/news/2013/march/9/king_stephen.aspx

I never thought that the Reformation did cause so many English kings to disappear! 

[Paul]

Nice "Little" Thesis on the welsh soldier 1283-1422
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/169897/1.hasCoversheetVersion/AJChapman_ethesis.pdf

[Atheling]

Well there won't be a primary source, as Henry was hardly going to set down any reasoning which didn't include his divine right to be King of France, and that the victory was therefore assured by God...

The perilous state of royal finances is more easily found in secondary sources however;

Curry, A., (2008) The military ordinances of Henry V: texts and contexts, in Given - Wilson, Kettle and Scales (eds), War, Government and Aristocracy, pp. 214‐49.
Mortimer, I (2010) 1415: Henry's Year of Glory.
Given-Wilson, C., (1986) The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity: Service, Politics and Finance in England 1360 -1413.
Newell, R.A. (1921) The War Finances of Henry V and the Duke of Bedford, English Historical Review XXXVI(CXLII): 172-198.

In short, Henry's income for the year 1415 was in the region of £60,000. Once his household, the pay of the existing garrisons in England and Calais, and the actual campaign costs (c. £75,000) were subtracted, he was in the red by £55,000 at the end of the year. Bear in mind that much of his income didn't appear until after harvests were collected, so at one point he was possibly looking at debts of £100,000. Throughout his reign he was to default on between 2-6% of his domestic loans and around 35% of his foreign ones.

Having already borrowed to the hilt for the campaign, where would the money have come from to pay his ransom? Money had been loaned by, or was was owed to, his chief nobles, who in the event of their capture, would also have expected reimbursement to pay part of their ransoms too. Surrender was really not an option.

It's also a fairly common assumption that the preponderance of archers in the army was largely because they gave best value for money. You could get 2-3 archers for the cost of a man at arms and if you were planning to conquer, garrisons largely composed of archers were far less expensive than ones with the more-usual archers to men at arms ratio. This trend was to continue until the end, even to the point of paying a new class of 'dismounted men at arms' in garrisons, to save the 4d extra a mounted one was expected to be paid.

Thanks mate. Apologies for not bookmarking the thread, a slight oversight on my part.

I have to admit to having actually read none of the above, which for me is a bit of an embarrassment as I usually keep up with everything that Anne Curry writes. (She has some very usefull insights pertaining to Agincourt which include a much smaller French army taking to the field than most authors/historians would have us believe- in short she's a very interesting historian!).

[Arlequín]

No apology required... I don't tend to bookmark threads either. 

I have to also admit only knowing about them because I was required to read them a while back, although, as you say Anne Curry is always on top of her game.

Medieval army numbers are really difficult to pin down. It was very common to raise troops for an army, especially on the continent, just to have them available for the menial tasks like digging and siege work.

The later Francs-Archers became synonymous with the expression 'Francs-Taupins' ('Free Moles' or 'Free Beetles', depending on who you believe), although they were originally different entities. The militias in Italy, with the exception of the 'select' ones like Milan and Venice, had also become a means of just raising labourers for the same tasks by the mid-fifteenth century.   

All of these 'non-soldiers', along with the camp followers, servants and whatever else, were probably numbered amongst 'armies', hugely inflating their numbers to the casual observer and his readers, who most likely understood the same conventions. Later generations though, like us, tend to be more literal and we take 'an army of x thousand men' as meaning just that. 

Nevertheless, Henry's victory was still an achievement and very much against the odds... just perhaps not as much as it's been 'bigged-up' over the centuries.