Military organisation and recruitment in the 14th century

What do you know so far about the topic? It's easier to fill in the blanks.
Also France and England were *extremely* different in regards to this question in the 14th C. Best to focus on one or the other at a time.

The King of France had a relatively feudal style levy with his own Royal demense that was rarely called upon to leave the lands it defended and various nobles who owed the King fealty. In theory the King was above everyone and in defense of the realm could request assistance at any time but practically there were smaller favors and many political considerations about who actually showed up when the King called. Also most feudal obligations were framed in days served and it was quite difficult for a King to launch an extended campaign until scutage and other forms of transfer payments were established.

There was also much negotiations about the spoils of a campaign waged offensively as what was considered defense of the realm vs offense vs the King punishing disobedient vassals or lawbreakers. During the specific eras referrenced France was quite often on the defensive inasmuch as France was what the Royal family controlled directly or could enforce fealty from. Much of the time French nobles were quite more powerful altogether and the King wasn't always even first among equals with various Dukes and even Counts sometimes wielding more direct power.

The King as an institution was backed both by the church and other monarchs where a threat to the rightful house of a kingdom was viewed unfavorably by most conservative elements of society even if they preferred a week King.

Usually an army was raised for a rather specific purpose and a defined duration of a single campaign season with men from further away expected to leave earlier to arrive on time but rarely could definite numbers be counted on ahead of time. Over 13th to 14th centuries the power of the King grew as it was recognised the muster system had numerous flaws but as those flaws were addressed and the number of men a King could depend upon grew over time the King gained an advantage over lower nobility whose own armies were often unreliable for similar reasons.

There were also men regularly appointed as Marshals whose job originally was more about planning campaigns ahead of time. Cajoling and negotiating with various people to ensure enough men showed up not to embarass the King. This role soon became more about being a general and leader on the field with the King only showing up in person for high status/important battles. As well as the King had growing body of men to call upon new postitions were created to manage and direct the contingents who were often dispersed over a wide area while in garrison.

aoide12 said:

With regards to the second question, all the references I can find to soldiers in the 14th C describe them as either knights, men at arms ( which I believe are heavy cavalry similar to knights but without the knighthood?) or archers. Given the cost of outfitting heavy cavalry this seems to suggest that all the non wealthy soldiers fought as archers. Is this really the case, surely this would mean there were many archers in an army?

Click to expand...

Mercenaries were becoming very popular in this period and had some amazing diversity, from Scottish galloglass to Swiss pikes to Italian crossbowmen. Some were heavy cavalry but they tended to be foot soldiers.

French armies typically featured heavy cavalry backed up by large contingents of hired mercenaries. I believe levies were mainly used for garrisons, not field armies.

The English, on the other hand, tended towards recruiting commoners through the yeomanry system. The yeoman were a kind of military middle class or armed peasant elite; people who received land for service. In peacetime, they were the bailiffs, wardens, constables, sherriffs and mayors in the villages and towns. These were generally archers, and they were commonly used in field armies.

Ironically, the yeomans evolved in England out of a French tradition imported by the Normans ... they had established a class of peasant freeholders known as franklins, which eventually evolved into the yeomanry.

aoide12 said:

I understand the feudal levy system was in place for much of the medieval period but I believe that it was around this time that it was replaced by contracts with semi professional soldiers (specifically in England) to increase numbers and campaign length. What I don't know is the nature of these contracts - who they were between, what their obligations were and how they were formed.

Click to expand...

Juliet Barker deals with this at length in her book on Agincourt, examining the various indentures and their meanings to the individuals involved.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Henry-Battle-That-England/dp/0316015040"]Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England: Juliet Barker: 9780316015042: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519QCJnd07L.@@AMEPARAM@@519QCJnd07L[/ame]

This was a very bloody and chaotic time, with the plague thrown in. Not one you would really choose to go back to in a time machine.

The hundred years war was an extremely complex affair involving not only England and France - though France was not as it is today - but Castilla, Navarra and Aragon, thrown along with civil wars in various places like France and Castilla.

aoide12 said:

With regards to the second question, all the references I can find to soldiers in the 14th C describe them as either knights, men at arms ( which I believe are heavy cavalry similar to knights but without the knighthood?) or archers. Given the cost of outfitting heavy cavalry this seems to suggest that all the non wealthy soldiers fought as archers. Is this really the case, surely this would mean there were many archers in an army?

Click to expand...

i've red some books about 14th century armies, although mostly about how they were gathered in the Iberian Christian Kingdoms, so not the areas you are trying to learn more. But the levy, and feudal system employed were pretty similiar. The call of arms as someone said in an earlier post was made by the King to a specific, raid or campaign and it was answered in different ways by different nobles, the problem was that sometimes the nobles weren't that much interested in participating in campaigns that didn't suited their interests or were far from their lands. While in the begginings of the reconquista the scene of border lands was always present and the nobles would rally to their Kings side more often, as the border grew further south, Kings had to implement a new system in which the nobles should have ready a number of "Lances" (Cavalry) and Peões (Infantry) , determined by their lands and wealth. This system grew more complex to include the equipment each soldier should have. There was also the Militias each major population center had, but they had a more defensive role.

In Portugal some of the militias were semi professional, especially the crossbowmen.

The level of soldier was still tied to it's wealth. In Portugal you had:

Cavalry

Nobles (Kings) and their mesnadas - With horses lances, armor and military training from birth.
Cavaleiros Vilões (men-at-arms) - Men that could afford a horse and better weapons and armour. (normally part of the Town Militias).

Infantry

mostly devided in two levels:

Besteiros do Condo (Crossbowmen of the county) - Men that didn't had a horse but had money to buy and mantain a crossbow and at least a piece of armor, later they where required to keep their training sharp.

Peões ("pawns") - well the poor bastards that hadn't any money to buy decent armor or weapons. their equipment mostly consisted of short spears and shields.

I can't stress how much important was having a horse in this times, although having a horse didn't necessarly mean that the soldier fought always or as cavalry, sometimes they used the horse to ride into a specific flank or place of the battle and then dismounted, also it's much easier to march to battles in a raid or campaign with full gear in a horse

Maybe a book of the Vth century would help you better understand.
"De re militari" Although the book was written some time in the 400s, it was used for a very long time - even a bit after 1770. Strangely, although originally conceived by Flavius Vegetius Renatus to be used by the remnants of the Roman empire, it's knowledge was used by anyone but the Romans.

Medieval said:

I can't stress how much important was having a horse in this times, although having a horse didn't necessarly mean that the soldier fought always or as cavalry, sometimes they used the horse to ride into a specific flank or place of the battle and then dismounted, also it's much easier to march to battles in a raid or campaign with full gear in a horse

Click to expand...

Henry V's army in the Agincourt campaign was almost if not entirely mounted, archers included, though they always fought on foot.

Medieval said:

I can't stress how much important was having a horse in this times, although having a horse didn't necessarly mean that the soldier fought always or as cavalry, sometimes they used the horse to ride into a specific flank or place of the battle and then dismounted, also it's much easier to march to battles in a raid or campaign with full gear in a horse

Click to expand...

Yes, good information and the importance of having a horse was also real part of social status in most of the territories that encompass modern France just a few generations before 14th century. Birth status became more fixed in France but France has the most populous region with the largest amount of upper classes. It was more flexible in areas that continually faced enemy incursions or threats where capability was nearly as important as birth status. During some chaotic eras in France it returned to that style of class hierarchy where wealth and/or ability was what conferred status for all but the highest of nobility.

Militias were more important in most areas outside of central France mostly because it was necessary for defense with Low Countries and Spanish March differing a bit.