# Military lands in 15th century



## Aldarion (Dec 28, 2019)

What is the minimum amount of land necessary to support a landed soldier in 15th century Western Europe for each type of soldiers (knight, man-at-arms, light cavalryman, archer, crossbowman etc.)?


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 28, 2019)

No one knows. There are too many variables and our sources are too inconsistent.

What does "support" mean here? Subistence level? Because beyond that, it's more a matter of the style to which I wish to become accustomed. Except that nobles were expected to carry on a certain lifestyle that could be financially crippling. 

There could be plenty of land and the individual could still become impoverished through lavish spending and unfortunate investments. The 15thc was the heyday of the impoverished knight.

Plenty of crossbowmen were from towns, so the land question becomes moot.

Land isn't just land. It's under widely varying levels of cultivation and development. Ten acres in the Low Countries is different from ten acres in the Pyrenees. Some land is only for hunting. Some contains mines or salt.

Yeah, just too many variables here. What prompts the question?


----------



## Sir Kenneth (Dec 28, 2019)

I guess the best way to get a good guesstimate would be to look at the number and type of participants in battles from the period and cross reference with population numbers in the areas they were from and if you can find out, how much of the land in those areas was used for farming.


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 29, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> What does "support" mean here? Subistence level? Because beyond that, it's more a matter of the style to which I wish to become accustomed. Except that nobles were expected to carry on a certain lifestyle that could be financially crippling.



"Support" means to enable basic lifestyle as well as all the necessities required for carrying out military service. Anything above that would be luxury.

System I have in mind is less of a Western feudal and more of a Eastern Roman _themata_ or _pronoia_ system. Problem I have is that estimates I have found (for resources and minimum military lands) are mostly for Byzantine soldiers of 9th/10th/11th centures - but that is an issue, because:

land quality and productivity in 10th century Anatolia _significantly_ differs from that in 15th century England or France
equipment and technology for producing equipment significantly differs between two areas (felt / quilted / mail / lamellar vs brigandine / plate)
other resources also significantly differ (Byzantine horses, even ones of cataphracts, were, I believe, significantly smaller; weapons and other equipment were also different)



> Plenty of crossbowmen were from towns, so the land question becomes moot.



Under _pronoia_ system (an attempted revival of thematic system), soldiers could live off the land yet still live in a city. So that by itself is not an issue. Other question of course is wealth of towns themselves, and what that would mean for the presence, extent, equipment and professionalism of town militias.



> Land isn't just land. It's under widely varying levels of cultivation and development. Ten acres in the Low Countries is different from ten acres in the Pyrenees. Some land is only for hunting. Some contains mines or salt.



I am aware. Though under Western Europe I had in mind specifically England and France.



> Yeah, just too many variables here. What prompts the question?



Basically, I am reworking military organization of a state in my world, so I would like more accurate data than the quick and dirty estimates I did originally.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 29, 2019)

*heh* getting numbers on participants in battles is all but impossible. And getting population figures is pretty much a career (at least it was for Josiah Cox Russell).

Accurate data is rarely possible for the Middle Ages. You might consider this: try doing a quick and dirty estimate of the least resources you'd imagine possible for an ordinary knight. Then make an estimate for a high end. Those are your brackets. You have a good grasp of the fundamentals here, so your estimates are going to be within the realm of reason. Anything in there is going to be realistic both in historical and in story terms.

For nuance, and just for the exercise, you might do the same for a greater lord, one with a dozen or a score of knights under him. The equations change pretty significantly--more obligations, more possibilities, mean a greater range of necessity.

But I suggest letting go of the idea you can get to accurate data. To quote a famous story: insufficient data for meaningful answer.


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 29, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> *heh* getting numbers on participants in battles is all but impossible. And getting population figures is pretty much a career (at least it was for Josiah Cox Russell).
> 
> Accurate data is rarely possible for the Middle Ages. You might consider this: try doing a quick and dirty estimate of the least resources you'd imagine possible for an ordinary knight. Then make an estimate for a high end. Those are your brackets. You have a good grasp of the fundamentals here, so your estimates are going to be within the realm of reason. Anything in there is going to be realistic both in historical and in story terms.
> 
> ...



What I tried doing is finding out value of land in Western Europe at the time, value of resources necessary (weapons, armour, horses), and comparing that to Byzantine Empire of 10th century so as to get amount of land necessary to support a certain type of soldier (armoured knight, light cavalryman, man-at-arms (heavy infantry), crossbowman, light infantry). I was hoping however for a way to check these values via independent process.

I won't even try doing estimates for a greater lord, since there are no greater lords - not in imperial military anyway. There are large landowners, but these are equivalent of Byzantine _dynatoi_, and while they would have their own retinues (historical _dynatoi_ certainly did), I do not think their system of raising troops was akin to Western Europe either. That is a topic I will have to do some more research on, though.

If you want to look it over (I would be thankful if you have time, there are a *lot *of places in there I could have screwed up on), this is the current state:
--------------------------------------
*RECRUITMENT*

During campaigns, soldiers receive pay from state, but outside of that they live off the land. Because of this, each soldier is given a plot of land (_prata militaris_, _stratiotika ktemata_) to live from in exchange for military service. This land is still state-owned and technically belongs to imperial estates; soldier is merely a user, but since service is hereditary, practical distinction is negligible. These troops are required to appear at yearly muster for drills, sometimes even twice a year, and serve on a seasonal basis. Each soldier is given a certain value of land, depending on requirements of service. One pound of gold is worth 20 solidi, and will purchase between 6 and 15 ha, or 60 000 – 150 000 m2 of land, average value being 75 000 m2. One peasant may own 8 to 20 ha of land; as such, many light infantrymen are peasants. Value of land, and income from it, does not derive necessarily solely from agricultural production; soldiers are free to engage in any economic activity. Age of new recruits may be anywhere from 13 to 35 years old, though most recruits join between ages 18 and 23. Service may last until soldier is 65, with minimum age of retirement being 50.

Units are recruited from their designated recruiting areas. Field army is an army of a province, and within the province each legion is assigned its own recruiting district. So are smaller units, down to the level of cohors at least. Soldiers from each decuria are billeted together. Commanders often have personal household and retainers which serve as their bodyguard.

Price of a war horse is 20 solidi (20 000 _denarii_), draught horse is 10 solidi; mail armour is 100 solidi, full plate armour for cavalryman is 320 solidi (540 solidi with horse armour), and infantry plate half-armour is 140 solidi. Open-faced helmet is 4 solidi. Horse needs to be replaced every 8 – 10 years, while armour may be repaired. A person owning land of two pounds of gold (40 solidi) has to have a helmet, a spear, and a gambeson. Military service itself is hereditary. Right to land passes from oldest son to oldest son, or else to closest (capable) male relative in case that soldier does not have a son or son is not capable of military service for one reason or another. In this way, land is not divided. People who do not have enough individually are to band together and provide equipment for one of them. Likewise, those individuals who possess more than minimum value are required to equip and provide additional soldier(s). However, land grant itself may not be inherited, and inheritors are often transferred to another land grant so as to prevent inheritance.

Original minimum land requirements are as follows:


heavy cavalry: 16 pounds of gold – 1 200 000 m2 of land


light cavalry: 4 pounds of gold – 300 000 m2 of land (40 peasant families; 80 solidi)


infantryman: 2 pounds of gold – 150 000 m2 of land


sailor: 2 pounds of gold – 150 000 m2 of land

However, armour technology had advanced from the time of original legislation, with plate armour supplementing other forms of armour, and largely replacing old lamellar armour. As such, following minimum requirements hold true (note: addition to land ½ the value of armour):


heavy cavalry: 18 pounds of gold / 1 350 000 m2 (4 pounds + 270 solidi / 13,5 pounds)


light cavalry: 4 pounds of gold / 300 000 m2


heavy infantry: 5,5 pounds of gold / 412 000 m2 (2 pounds + 70 solidi / 3,5 pounds)


medium infantry: 4,5 pounds of gold / 337 000 m2 (2 pounds + 50 solidi / 2,5 pounds)


light infantry: 1 pound of gold / 75 000 m2


sailor: 2 pounds of gold / 150 000 m2

With 14 049 000 people in the core territories, area under cultivation is 50 576 400 acres or 204 675 square kilometers. This represents 15,4% of the area of core territories, with half of that amount of land (fallow land) being left to recuperate for the next year under three-field system, for a total of 307 000 square kilometers. Somewhat smaller is used for pastures (14 million ha = 140 000 km2), particularly for horses. Thus total land utilization is 23% for agriculture, and more for pastures, for a total of 447 000 km2. Of that, more than 25% is given for military needs, for a total of 111 750 km2.

_NOTE: Crop yield is 7 – 15 bushels per acre, or 470 to 1 000 kg per ha. This is efficiency of 3,5 – 5:1, but poor years may see it drop to 4 bushels per acre. Planting is 1 bushel per acre, but two-field rotation system means that two acres are required for 1 bushel continuous production. Human being requires 24 bushels of crop per year, or 337 176 000 bushels per year for the above population. With average of 9 bushels per acre, this would require 37 464 000 acres or 151 611 km2, or 12,7 acres per family of 5. This however is a minimum value, maximum family land being 30 acres, and average family holding being 18 acres. Also, for comparison, a feudal knight would require 1 000 acres or 4 000 000 m2 for support, almost 4 times the equally-equipped thematic cataphract. On the other hand, some knights in England required only 180 acres, but generally, property of landed knights was worth 20 – 40 pounds of gold. Expenses are 17 solidi per family per year / 0,85 pounds of gold. Cataphract lands of 1 350 000 m2 (333 acres) would have 18 – 20 families working on them._

Each legion is assigned an area which supports it. Prescribed number is four cohorts of cavalry and infantry each, for a total of 800 heavy cavalry, 1 200 light (missile) cavalry, 1 200 heavy infantry, 1 600 crossbowmen (medium infantry), 400 javeliners, 400 slingers (or else 800 slingers) and 400 shield bearers, for a total of 6 000 troops in main battle line, of which 2 000 cavalry and 4 000 infantry (that is, 4 infantry and 4 cavalry cohorts). To this are added staff, which at total of 18 cohorts counts 198 men.

Additional 400 light cavalry (200 missile, 200 lancer) and 600 light infantry (400 melee, 200 crossbow) is supported from same area but forms independent cohort tasked with ranging and garrison duties. In total, 7 000 trops are supported from an area. Navy is 12% size of the army, so each naval area supports 840 sailors.


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 29, 2019)

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

Land requirements are as follows:


800 cataphractii – 1 080 000 000 m2 = 1 080 km2


1 600 light cavalry – 480 000 000 m2 = 480 km2 (360 km2 legion, 120 km2 scouts)

1 200 legionary missile cavalry


400 light scout cavalry


1 200 heavy infantry – 494 400 000 m2 = 494,4 km2


1 600 medium infantry – 539 200 000 m2 = 539,2 km2


1 800 light infantry – 135 000 000 m2 = 135 km2 (90 km2 legion, 45 km2 scouts)

800 light legionary infantry


400 shield bearers


600 light scout infantry


840 sailors – 126 000 000 m2 = 126 km2

A total land area required by a legion is 2 563 600 000 m2 (2 563,6 km2), by an independent cohort 165 000 000 m2 (165 km2), and by naval detachment 126 000 000 m2 (126 km2). Total is thus 2 854,6 km2. As a result, Empire has a total of 39 legions, independent cohorts and naval detachments each, for total provincial establishment of 305 760. Empire also maintains a standing army, the _Exercitus Praesentalis_. This army numbers a total of 49 000 men (7 legions and independent cohorts). Exact division is below.


Exercitus Provincialis (273 000 ground troops, 32 760 naval troops)

39 legions (234 000 troops; 78 000 cavalry, 156 000 infantry)

31 200 cataphractii


46 800 light missile cavalry


46 800 heavy infantry


62 400 crossbowmen


15 600 slingers


15 600 javeliners


15 600 shield bearers


7 722 staff


39 independent cohorts (39 000 troops, 15 600 cavalry, 23 400 infantry)

7 800 light missile cavalry


7 800 light lancer cavalry


15 600 light melee infantry


7 800 light crossbow infantry


39 naval detachments

32 760 sailors / marines



Exercitus Praesentalis (49 000 ground troops, 5 880 naval troops)

7 legions (42 000 troops, 14 000 cavalry, 28 000 infantry)

5 600 cataphractii


8 400 light missile cavalry


8 400 heavy infantry


11 200 crossbowmen


2 800 slingers


2 800 javeliners


2 800 shield bearers


7 independent cohorts (7 000 troops, 2 800 cavalry, 4 200 infantry)

1 400 light missile cavalry


1 400 light lancer cavalry


2 800 light melee infantry


1 400 light crossbow infantry


7 naval detachments

5 880 sailors / marines



_Note: Black Army of Hungary originally 6-8 000 mercenaries at population of 5 000 000 (0,16%), risen to 15-20 000 (0,3-0,4%) in 1480s and to 28 000 in 1485 (0,56%), of which 20 000 horsemen and 8 000 infantry. Byzantine Tagmata numbered 42 000 in 1025 at 12 000 000 (0,35%), 28 000 in 959 at 9 000 000 (0,31%) and 24 000 in 842 at 8 000 000 (0,3%). All troops in Tagmata were heavy cavalry (cataphracts), the most expensive type of troops to maintain. A total of 77 000 ground troops of standing army at population of 14 049 000 comes out to 0,55%._

Overall military strength of the Empire comes in at 360 640 men. Of these, 322 000 are ground troops and 38 640 are navy.

_Note: This gives total military strength as 2,57% of overall population, and navy is 12% of ground forces. Byzantine Empire in 1025. could raise an army of 250 000 men with fleet strength in late 9th century of 42 000 – 77 000 men from population of 12 000 000. This gives overall military strength as 2,43 – 2,73% of population, and navy strength as 16,8 – 30,8% of ground forces. Seeing later events and overall context and behaviour of the Empire in 9th century – e.g. giving up of control of Adriatic to Venice – it is in fact likely that fleet in 1025. was weaker than listed here, thus coming in at 2,4% or even less of military strength as proportion of population. However, Byzantine lands were much less fertile and more mountainous than is the case with Vetronian Empire here, and naval threat much more pronounced._


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 29, 2019)

I don't see anything egregious here. I know that Byzantine records are better than in the West, so the specificity doesn't surprise me. When I picture the western emperor trying to produce something similar, I just laugh.

I do have a question. Do you happen to have a source for this: "_On the other hand, some knights in England required only 180 acres, but generally, property of landed knights was worth 20 – 40 pounds of gold."_

I'm not really a military historian, but I don't recall anything in de Vries or the other military writers that addresses this.

Have you read any Bernard Bachrach? He's the authority for Carolingian era military.


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 29, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> I do have a question. Do you happen to have a source for this: "_On the other hand, some knights in England required only 180 acres, but generally, property of landed knights was worth 20 – 40 pounds of gold."_



Don't recall where I found it first, but I did find these:
Haskins Society Journal
The Fifteenth-century Inquisitions Post Mortem

I do believe that 180 acres may refer only to _arable_ land, so if only half the land is arable, nominal property would have been 360 acres.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 29, 2019)

Thanks for that. That's really the dividing line we historians mean when we say "not my field." We might have read a book or two or even ten on the topic, but we aren't reading the journal literature, which is where the deep work gets done.

Anyway, press on with your project. I do hope you let folks here know when you have a book ready!


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 29, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> Thanks for that. That's really the dividing line we historians mean when we say "not my field." We might have read a book or two or even ten on the topic, but we aren't reading the journal literature, which is where the deep work gets done.
> 
> Anyway, press on with your project. I do hope you let folks here know when you have a book ready!



Thanks. Definitely will.


----------

