Rakshasa wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Given that the English of the period were known as some of the toughest soldiers in Europe, and that anyone who took down a king would gain a ransom as relatively fabulous as being an heir to Microsoft, the event says something of the persuasive power of the axe as a weapon.
Err, are you saying the grunts would get the ransom? Doesn't seem likely, beyond some paltry extra reward. Not enough to throw one's life at anyway.
Yes, actually, in large part. Remember, however, that "grunts" didn't mean the same thing in that army as in a modern army. The armored types doing most of the fighting might have as high a rank as duke or earl, and as low a rank as serjent or man-at-arms. All of these men, up to and including kings and princes, expected to make money off any military victory, either in ransom or loot. Even the unarmored archers in an English army would expect to get at least a good share of ransom money if they took a prisoner.
Rights of ransom and loot were written into all their contract, literally, in most cases. More than likely, the greatest restriction on share would be <i>lesse majeste</i>, which is to say, no one was going to let a commoner get enough money from ransom and loot to make him a gentleman. However, a knight or lord could expect to get most of it, minus a share for whoever hired him, presumably the king or some important noble or captain.
Virtually all the prisoners taken at Poiters were eventually ransomed by someone. Because of the extreme diverence in wealth throughout medieval society, the ransom of a middling level knight could set a common farmer or villager up for life.
In the next century, during the Wars of the Roses in England, leaders sometimes gave orders to "Spare the commons and kill the Lords!" This practice shocked the nobility of Europe, who all considered themselves part of the same social circle and all protected by the rules of ransom, and also risked mutiny among the English soldiers. They forfeited the financial opportunity of a lifetime when the "no quarter" command was given.
King John of France's ransom was eventually set at an amount later calculated as two years the total net income of his entire realm. The custom of the time and the code of chivalry determined that he be kept in luxury befitting his station while a prisoner and that he would give his oath as a Christian knight not to attempt to escape or get involved in politics during his imprisonment. John stayed in Englished castles for fifteen years, initially, returning France on vacation once or twice. After his ransom was re-negotiated---payment of the originally amount was fiscally impossible--he came back to France. When his war-ravaged realm could not meet the re-negotiated payments, he voluntarily returned to England and lived out his days in luxury, hunting, jousting, and partying. This earned him the condemnation of many people at the time and many more since. His abscence from France crippled the government. In the 16th Century, Francis II got himself bagged by Charles Hapburg and weaseled out of his ransom and parole deal. Less chivalrous, but definitely more patriotic.