Theoretically, a man of knightly status would be better trained, if only because his family would have had the resources and leisure necessary in order to give him a full education in arms. How well did they match the ideal? The answer is unclear, but it is apparent that there was a relative drop in participation in warfare from the knightly class over the course of the Hundred Years War. This may simply be the result of fewer knights being created by English monarchs, or it might represent diminished interest in warfare from the knights themselves. But this is a very broad, gradual shift; an individual knight on the battlefield was still expected to perform his duties with skill and excellence. There was no formal military training regime for either common soldiers or the aristocracy. Any training they did do would be on their own initiative or in relatively small groups. Archery practice was famously mandated by law in England and the strident tone of laws banning sword and buckler fights in the city of London indicates that regular people were also practicing with other sorts of arms. How widespread these practices were, we simply can't know. There are very few sources that would give us insight into what common people actually did in regards to the laws that mandated or prohibited certain forms of military practice.

Whether knighted or not, a soldier stationed in a garrison or contracted to a retinue was supposed to make an appearance at a regularly scheduled review known as a muster. At the muster, men were required to bring their war gear and demonstrate that they were capable of using it. Soldiers who failed to meet this requirement might face legal/financial penalties, be dismissed from service, or both. Knights, men-at-arms, and archers who fought in the Hundred Years War were generally professionals, often from military families. It is clear that close personal networks among soldiers were vital for recruitment. Presumably older relatives with military experience would assist in training their younger counterparts, just as military equipment was passed down from one generation to the next. So were knights better trained? Possibly, but that doesn't mean that the poorer soldiers were necessarily untrained or unprepared for service. Henry V and Edward of Woodstock/the Black Prince were both involved in major battles at the age of 16, but we also have a few examples of 16 year old common soldiers. The best form of training was to actually participate in campaigns. There is a suggestion that smaller campaigns and mercenary activity in other parts of Europe was treated as a form of training for younger members of the professional military community.

The aristocracy was absolutely involved in combat when they were present on the field. Not all commanders were expected to fight, of course, (especially if they were older, sick, or otherwise infirm), but it was a common sight and part of the culture of the day. Henry V was quite famous for his personal valor in combat and was shot in the face at Shrewsbury. His brother, the Duke of Gloucester, shared his sibling's valor and unlucky streak; he was stabbed in the groin at Agincourt. The much-slandered French aristocracy was just as brave as the English. French chronicles of the era often blamed defeats on the rashness and overconfidence of the aristocracy, which a somewhat unfair stereotype. Whatever their actual combat record, no one could accuse the French aristocracy of cowardice even in their most famous defeats.