The cost of a basic load in 1356

[MikeO]

In 1356 a sheaf of arrows (24) cost an archer 5 days pay.

An E-1 in the U.S. Army makes about $1500 month, or $250 for five days.

The cost of a basic load today is less, and gets you way more shots at the enemy. ;)

[Chris Rhines]

Interesting. I wonder if the math holds for artillery?

[Tamara]

How much is that in electrum pieces?

[MikeO]

How much is that in electrum pieces?

In Lydia, 3 electrums was a month's pay for a soldier... so one electrum would be 10 days pay... a half electrum was 5 days pay.

Three electrum were about 14 grams, say 50/50 gold silver, that's about $350 today, or about $60 for 5 days?

[threedogdad]

For those who roll their own...assuming components on hand, that same soldier's 5 days pay will allow me to make more than 2,000 rounds of 9mm over a long weekend, which I do several times each year.

I haven't tried to find out, but I wonder how many arrows I could make during that same amount of time. My flintknapping skills are **** but assuming pre-made components, hmmm. I may have to test this some day.

[MikeO]

For those who roll their own...assuming components on hand, that same soldier's 5 days pay will allow me to make more than 2,000 rounds of 9mm over a long weekend, which I do several times each year.

I haven't tried to find out, but I wonder how many arrows I could make during that same amount of time. My flintknapping skills are **** but assuming pre-made components, hmmm. I may have to test this some day.

Cedar shafts are $36 doz, $290 per hundred. Bodkin points are $3-4 each (field points $30 per hundred), feathers are $50 per hundred. Then there's the glue and thread for the fletch and points, the stain/lacquer for the shafts, horn for the nocks...

Most time consuming part is cutting the nocks, inserting the horn, recutting the nock... or carving horn nocks from scratch and then putting them on a tapered shaft.

Arrows are cheap to practice with, expensive to go to war with.

[Failure2Stop]

However, an archer back then was not an infantryman, but rather artillery support.

[MikeO]

However, an archer back then was not an infantryman, but rather artillery support.

True. Artillery was very expensive too, and the rate of fire incredibly slow for the early stuff (hours per shot, not shots per hour).

At the 1356 Battle of Poitiers, artillery was available, but not used by either side.

At the battle of Castillon in 1453, French artillery mauled English archers, winning the Hundred Years War.

[BLR]

In 1356 a sheaf of arrows (24) cost an archer 5 days pay.

An E-1 in the U.S. Army makes about $1500 month, or $250 for five days.

The cost of a basic load today is less, and gets you way more shots at the enemy. ;)

I have trouble believing an E-1 is the equivalent of a 14th century archer.

[Suvorov]

I have trouble believing an E-1 is the equivalent of a 14th century archer.

I guess that would depend on the archers age.

This thread brings up an idea that I often think about. Would a true "well regulated militia" in the tradition of the old English law be practical and/or even feasible in our society today? Every able bodied man 18-50 must own and maintain a suitable AR platform 556 rifle and qualify with it once per year. Women at their option. Body armor and pistols meeting set requirements are optional. What would be the ramifications on our society? Would it hinder our ability to project force? Am I living in such a fantasy world that I'm not even worth replying to? :confused:

Switzerland comes the closest today, but still arms are provided by the state and ammunition has recently stopped being issued to keep at home. I don't know how much private ammo a Swiss citizen can keep with them.

[PPGMD]

What is the cost comparison to equip a modern 11B E-1 compared to a 14th century archer.
Optic, DBAL, light, PVS-14, body armor, helmet, etc.

[TGS]

I guess that would depend on the archers age.

This thread brings up an idea that I often think about. Would a true "well regulated militia" in the tradition of the old English law be practical and/or even feasible in our society today? Every able bodied man 18-50 must own and maintain a suitable AR platform 556 rifle and qualify with it once per year. Women at their option. Body armor and pistols meeting set requirements are optional. What would be the ramifications on our society? Would it hinder our ability to project force? Am I living in such a fantasy world that I'm not even worth replying to? :confused:

Switzerland comes the closest today, but still arms are provided by the state and ammunition has recently stopped being issued to keep at home. I don't know how much private ammo a Swiss citizen can keep with them.

Hinder our ability to project force?

As opposed to a professional military of the same size, I'd say obviously so. I still think citizen-soldiery is a very effective form of defense, however.

There's a few reasons that American society generally disliked the idea of a professional military up until the 1950s. Historically, large standing militaries bode poorly for a society when that government can no longer sustain its kill-squads with productive work.

[Suvorov]

Hinder our ability to project force?

As opposed to a professional military of the same size, I'd say obviously so.

There's a few reasons that American society generally disliked the idea of a professional military up until the 1950s.

Agreed. A line of thought is that if every citizen was a soldier, and the vast majority of soldiers - citizens, it would make force projection much more difficult and empire building harder. That said, England certainly engaged in Empire building during the late middle ages.

From a non-interventionist hawkish (if the two are not mutually exclusive), this would be a fairly ideal solution in theory.

[TGS]

Agreed. A line of thought is that if every citizen was a soldier, and the vast majority of soldiers - citizens, it would make force projection much more difficult and empire building harder. That said, England certainly engaged in Empire building during the late middle ages.

From a non-interventionist hawkish (if the two are not mutually exclusive), this would be a fairly ideal solution in theory.

We also engaged in pseudo-colonialism with citizen soldiers, if that's an example of force projection you want to mention. The Philippine War was largely fought using national guardsmen.

Utopian thinking alert:
I'm a big proponent for taking away authority from the executive branch (and federal government at large) on the federal use of the Nat'l Guard for overseas operations other than humanitarian ops. In addition, I think the professional forces should be downsized significantly. IMO, we don't need professional infantry with the exception of a few regiments of Marines, the 75th Rangers, the special ops community, and maybe the 101st and 82nd. There's no reason to be paying full-time for entire divisions of mediocrity.

[Tamara]

Would a true "well regulated militia" in the tradition of the old English law be practical and/or even feasible in our society today? Every able bodied man 18-50 must own and maintain a suitable AR platform 556 rifle and qualify with it once per year. Women at their option. Body armor and pistols meeting set requirements are optional. What would be the ramifications on our society?

Er, I'd have to go to the Maximum Security Range (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/07/shooty-goodness-weekend-recap.html) at Camp Atterbury once a year? Other than that, I don't see where it would change my life any. (Except maybe I could get some subsidized 5.56 and 9x19?)

[MikeO]

What is the cost comparison to equip a modern 11B E-1 compared to a 14th century archer.
Optic, DBAL, light, PVS-14, body armor, helmet, etc.

I was trying to keep it simple, arrows v ammo. Five days pay got you 24 shots at the enemy. That makes arrows pretty expensive, relatively speaking.

Gets trickier when we start talking about outfitting men-at-arms, and knights.

What's the equivalent of a knight? Arms, armor, throw in the horse and tack, armor for the horse, a medieval knight was spending some serious money to go to war.

But not as much as a pilot in an F-22? ;)

[Suvorov]

What's the equivalent of a knight? Arms, armor, throw in the horse and tack, armor for the horse, a medieval knight was spending some serious money to go to war.

But not as much as a pilot in an F-22? ;)

I'd say pretty much equivalent.

A fighter or tank is a multi-million dollar piece of hardware that required millions more in maintenance, fuel, and training. They are well beyond the means of the common man, just like a destrier, full suit of the latest armor, well made sword, and the time devoted to training to use them, was the medieval yeoman or peasant (of course for a serf such concepts would be completely out of the question).

But in most cases the means to support a knight was provided by the "government" in the form of the feudal system that provided the knight the land and the resources from that land were meant in part to support themselves and their men at arms.

The modern day implications of such a system are fascinating to me.


I was trying to keep it simple, arrows v ammo. Five days pay got you 24 shots at the enemy. That makes arrows pretty expensive, relatively speaking.

How many arrows would an archer expect to fire in battle? A skirmish? Do you have any idea as to how the standard load of 24 arrows was decided? Was it simply what they could carry?

[Drang]

We also engaged in pseudo-colonialism with citizen soldiers, if that's an example of force projection you want to mention. The Philippine War was largely fought using national guardsmen.
Actually, State Volunteer Regiments, not National Guard. They weren't part of the state militia.

Utopian thinking alert:
I'm a big proponent for taking away authority from the executive branch (and federal government at large) on the federal use of the Nat'l Guard for overseas operations other than humanitarian ops. In addition, I think the professional forces should be downsized significantly. IMO, we don't need professional infantry with the exception of a few regiments of Marines, the 75th Rangers, the special ops community, and maybe the 101st and 82nd. There's no reason to be paying full-time for entire divisions of mediocrity.
The US Military definition of "mediocrity" looks an awful lot like the rest of the world's "elite".

The risk we run in shutting down all Regular Army heavy forces is that we just might be wrong, and need Army Mech and Armor Division on shorter notice than activating the various National Guards can provide us.

Since we're slaughtering sacred cows here, I would suggest that the Marines go back to being an on-board guard force with no formation larger than a battalion, as we have little need for amphibious assaults these days. In fact, there is no particular reason a battalion of light infantry from the Army could not be used in an amphibious or air assault. Really, the only MOS the USMC has that the Army does not, is "Amtrack Driver", and the Army has people who can drive a track or an "armored car".

NOMEX Suit ON.

[Suvorov]

Actually, State Volunteer Regiments, not National Guard. They weren't part of the state militia.

The US Military definition of "mediocrity" looks an awful lot like the rest of the world's "elite".

I would also have a very hard time calling the average infantryman from the Big Red One or any other infantry division "mediocre".

But trying to keep this thread drift I started true to the original thread, what was the historical record of how England's citizen archers fared in combat against well disciplined professional armies (mercenaries)? The middle ages were largely devoid of what we today, or the Romans of before, would consider a professional army (in Western and Central Europe at least).

[MikeO]

How many arrows would an archer expect to fire in battle? A skirmish? Do you have any idea as to how the standard load of 24 arrows was decided? Was it simply what they could carry?

When called up, an archer was expected to bring his bow and a sheaf of arrows w his other equipment. May need several for a battle. Re supply through the crown's stock.

Edward III had at most 2 million arrows for his 7500 archers available for his entire campaign (which included weeks of raiding and sieges). Sure did not have all of them available at Crecy.

Drawing a war bow is hard work; nobody did it easily. Might get 8 arrows off the first minute, half that the second minute, less after that. So 7500 archers is 60,000 arrows the first minute. The French may have charged 15 times at Crecy. Would not take long to run out of arrows if you were not careful.

We're so euro-centric. Mongol horse archers typically carried a quiver w 30 arrows in it, as did the Parthians. At Carrhae, the Parthians had 1,000 camels carrying arrows for their 9,000 archers...

[MikeO]

But trying to keep this thread drift I started true to the original thread, what was the historical record of how England's citizen archers fared in combat against well disciplined professional armies (mercenaries)? The middle ages were largely devoid of what we today, or the Romans of before, would consider a professional army (in Western and Central Europe at least).

Mixed. Archers did great at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, not so much at Verneuil, Patay, Formigny, and Castillon.

Swiss pikemen, Italian crossbowmen, and German swordsmen could give them trouble. Better armor and artillery getting cheaper is what did them in.

FWIW, a mounted English archer was paid about 50% more than a skilled stone mason at the time. A sheaf of arrows was 4 days pay for a stone mason... ;)