Taking information from answers on this sub, I understand an archer in the Edwardian phase of the war would have been paid 6d per day, compared to an average of a little over 5d a day if he stayed home and worked his skilled trade. It seems to me that by the time a man could afford to buy even some basic gear and go on campaign he could make just as much staying home, with less risk of death.
My first question is, am I fundamentally misunderstanding who made up the ranks of the semiprofessional, nontitled soldiers? Would they have been something of a leisure class, e.g. minor landlords or merchants and their dependents? But further, what was the financial incentive to going off to fight? Most of the chevauchee raids were burning poor people out of their homes so there couldn't have been much loot to be gained there; were they hoping for a battle so they could recover and resell some armor (only used once!) and weapons?
In 1285, the Statute of Winchester had updated and extended earlier English laws mandating able-bodied older teenagers and men to be "sworn to arms" for defense of the realm. Twice a year, they were obligated to report to a local muster for officials to make sure that they owned the proper arms (and also, would come when hailed for duty).
The type and amount of arms and armour that each man had to bring along was parceled out according to property, measured in both land and goods. Importantly here, even men whose wealth/property did not even register enough to be counted as "goods and income less than 20 marks/year" were still required to own and bring a bow and either arrows or bolts.
"Defense of the realm" was, of course, a flexible term. It could mean watching the coasts for potential invasion, actually fighting off invaders from the Channel, battling Scotland in the north, or simply acting as an internal police force/militia. However, through the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360, which marked the end of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War, England was still drawing its overseas troops from the "defensive" muster rolls.
John Alban stresses, however, that the selection of troops was already a selection at that point, even before the mercenary/semi-professionalization of the English army in the later decades of the 14th century. For overseas warfare, so-called captains were given much more leeway to specify what types of soldiers in what amount (cavalry, infantry) they intended to lead.
They did have the power to offer other incentives to potential troops. One proverbial carrot to dangle was the newly simmering idea of military service as a career--including the possibility of promotion and higher pay in the future. Easy peacetime garrison service after the war was not guaranteed, but might seem lucrative and attractive as well. There was off course the tantalizing possibility of loot from picking over battle remains and from sacking churches, monasteries, castles, better-off peasants' homes. None of these would come about from defensive duty--and remember, the men not coming to muster for an overseas campaign were still subject to temporary service in England if called!
The most pressing concerns included pardons for crimes and, well, being paid at all for having fought in that last campaign for which they were still owed money. We know from letters and legal records that the latter was a major concern among soldiers, and their commanders both knew it and used it. Even before a tax-supported standing army, the system was becoming self-perpetuating: David Green notes that "often the best way to secure wages for the last campaign was to sign on for the next."
As a followup question, did skill with a bow matter to be an archer? Were soliders paid more or otherwise incentivized if they could demonstate an ability to, say, hit a target from a given range?
(1/2)
The Three Campaigns of 1355
There were nominally three campaigns planned for 1355: the first was to be lead by the Earl of Lancaster, and would target Normandy, the second was initially to be lead by the Earl of Warwick but was then placed under the command of the Black Prince and was aimed at Gascony, while the third was to be lead by King Edward himself and would strike out from the port city of Calais to devastate the French countryside. Clifford Rogers has argued that there were only two planned expeditions and that Lancaster's expedition was one proposed following Navarre's defection to the French but not actually followed up. Regardless, there were at least two armies competing for resources, and this included men. As the Black Prince's expedition is the best documented of the two, I'll be using it as a case study.
I think it's important to note here that we have comparatively little evidence of the occupations and practice of archery in the English countryside during this period. It's not until the Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 that we have sufficient records of names and occupations to match with records of service from muster rolls. We have some limited evidence from the surnames or the odd note in other muster rolls prior to this that give us some professions, but this offers a very incomplete picture. The currently published Muster Rolls that I'm aware of also almost all refer to towns, rather than the countryside from which most archers were drawn.
As a result, I'm going to be using some works that aren't necessarily representative of the situation in 1355. I'll be using my best judgement when discussing and drawing conclusions from them, but it will be informed speculation only.
Recruiting for the Black Prince's Expedition
The question of why you would choose to serve in the Prince's expedition to Gascony requires first that we establish who was enlisting. This is pretty tricky for the most part, but there is nonetheless one group we can identify with ease: the criminals.
It had been standard practice for some time for those wanted for murder or some other major crime to serve the King in return for a pardon. While some pardons were granted prior to service, most were granted only after the service was complete, likely to avoid desertion. While it might seem like an easy ride, those serving in return for a pardon were almost never paid a wage and had to pay a fee after the campaign to receive their pardon. Although no source I have discusses it, they were probably armed at the expense of the Crown and this equipment would have been returned once their service was complete. As such, those serving in exchange for pardons relied entirely on loot to make their service worthwhile. As a risk, though, it was probably better than immediate execution or a long prison sentence. Of the 890 served in the Prince's campaign that we can positively identify, almost 180 men were serving in exchange for a pardon, or about 7-8% of the total English force.
Of the remainder, we know that 300 of the "best and most skillful archers" were to be raised in Cheshire by means of a Commission of Array, along with another 100 of the "best and most skillful archers that can be found in the county". These latter were probably recruited via an indenture to serve directly under the Prince and would have already had their equipment or be in a position to obtain it themselves, thus making them relatively wealthy. A further 100 archers were to be raised from Flintshire, while 140 men from North Wales were also to be raised (these may not have been archers - their role is not specified and North Wales was known for their spearmen).
In all probability, only the archers from Cheshire served as mounted archers, as they received pay of 6d per day as opposed to the 3d per day of the men from Flintshire and Wales. Precisely how the 300 men summoned by Commissions of Array received their mount is unknown. Perhaps the lower number of men demanded from the shire allowed the communities to afford to purchase a horse for the man demanded from their area, or perhaps the commissioners deliberately chose those who could afford to purchase a horse and that this was part of a criteria that has not survived or was unwritten. Not all of those chosen would have served - it was permissible for a man to pay another to serve in his stead, and this may have included the provision of a horse, helmet and sword to supplement the required bow and arrows of a poorer man.
How the retinues of the other lords who served were recruited is unknown. Commissions of Array are unlikely, as Cheshire was a county palatine and the Prince was the heir, giving him the support of the king in this regard. We do know that some Cheshire archers joined retinues of other lords, in spite of this being forbidden without the Prince's permission until he had gathered a sufficient number of archers. Indentures, that is, contracts for military service, are the more likely method.
It's also unlikely that the other lords recruited predominantly from areas around them. In the late 14th century, lords did not recruit most of their men from their home county, having between 7% and 23% of their total force made up of these men. As evidenced by the Cheshire archers joining other retinues, this seems the case here as well. The Prince was almost certainly alone in his desire and ability to recruit men form his home counties. The other captains would have hired anyone willing to serve, though at least some part of their retinue would be made up of archers from their lands or counties. Many of these would have been servants who performed some other, primary, task when not on campaign, while others would be tenants or free tenants from their lands.
Now we come to the question of who volunteered for service. Samuel Gibbs' thesis provides the best analysis for the late 14th century, though it has its limits. Frustratingly, the Poll Tax records for Cheshire and Flintshire appear to be largely lacking and heavily weighted towards towns. As a result, there is a bias towards artisans. Overall, for England, archers in the standardised "laborer", "servant" and tenant" categories were most frequently the largest proportion of the archers. Wage laborers were most common in areas where there was a high population density, limited good quality land and close links to a major town or city, such as Wessex or Sussex. Areas with lower population densities, such as the Dorset region, had a larger proportion of tenant farmers as archers.
In terms of general economic status, those employed in retinues of lords from their county were of a generally middling sort - not as poor as the poorest, but not as rich as the richest peasants. The economically motivated archers, serving in retinues outside of their county, had more of a spread. They featured some in the lowest and highest brackets for peasants, with less grouped around the middle range. This suggests a wider range of economic backgrounds and that some of the poorer may have had their equipment provided or might have taken out loans to afford it. While we mostly hear about loans taken out by men-at-arms, knights and lords or retinue captains, credit was available to villagers within their own village or in the wider area around their village. Most of these were small loans, under 40 shillings, but as an archers only needed 26 shillings to meet minimum requirements for the mid-14th century mounted archers, this was within the range for loans given by fellow peasants. The promise of loot or saved wages to repay the debt would have made it an attractive option for those in the poorer levels of society.
(cont.)