Source: http://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/evidence-from-the-court-of-chivalry/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:04:07+00:00

Document:
Historians have made much use of the cases contested in the court of chivalry in the later fourteenth century. Detailed depositions were delivered by the supporters of either side of the contesting parties, usually to prove a case of heraldry. Witnesses would be called to testify where they had seen the heraldry in use. On many occasions therefore this would be on the field of battle, and hence we are provided with first hand evidence of a deponent’s military career. This evidence does not contain every campaign a man would have attended, as one would only have to testify where he had seen the arms in question, and not list every expedition he had been on.  However, a witness would often begin his deposition with his age and also the number of years he had been in arms, thus indicating the possible length of military service. I must confess that I also made extensive use of these cases in my own book, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century (Boydell, 2004) and the following is adapted from a section written before the medieval soldier database was born. In order to demonstrate the usefulness of the online database I have revisited the careers of two of the soldiers in the discussion below (Sir John de Brewes and William Plumstead). These are just brief sketches, but hint at the wealth of information we have gathered.
The following Table summarises the deponents in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case who also can be identified as serving in the campaigns of 1387-1388. It shows the details of their service in 1387-1388; their age as stated in the deposition; their years of active service as stated in their deposition; the campaigns at which they claim to have seen the disputed arms. The table also shows an estimate of their age at their first campaign, calculated from the information given about current age and years of service. The age of these men at the depositions is pertinent to this discussion, as they were given just one year before the campaigns of 1387-1388.
The average age of those testifying and serving in 1387-1388 is 43 years old. It is also interesting to note that 11 of the men testifying have over 20 years of service by the time of the case in 1386. Many of these men began campaigning at a young age. Sir James Chudlegh’s deposition demonstrated that he first served aged 11  and nine men in total had gained military experience before the age of 20. Chudlegh served with the earl of Devon in 1387 and 1388.  The average age and levels of experience demonstrated indicate that those on campaign would have consisted of well-experienced soldiers. However, it should be noted that the sample included in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case is selected and is therefore naturally skewed. The deponents were chosen because they had a lot of experience and were able to testify that they had seen the arms on a number of occasions throughout the shared English military experience. Therefore one man remembers the siege of Calais in 1347, three men served with Edward III in France in 1359 and five men had served with the Black Prince in 1369. Therefore, although the experience demonstrated by those at the Scrope v. Grosvenor case is extensive, it should be remembered that not all of our participants would be able to claim such a pedigree of service.
These few examples drawn from the table, demonstrate that these men have been almost constantly in military service and thus are examples of ‘professional’ soldiers with military careers stretching back into the reign of Edward III. This evidence suggests that these men would have served in the campaigns of 1387-1388, because military service is what they did. Furthermore, the earl of Arundel would have appreciated the experience of the men whose careers are illustrated in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case, when he was recruiting his forces. This is demonstrated by the significant number of soldiers who campaign in 1387-1388 and also make depositions at the court of chivalry.
Two other cases have also been discussed by historians to further illustrate the late fourteenth century military community. Maurice Keen has analysed the records from the Grey v. Hastings case in the early years of the reign of Henry IV.  Keen identified similar patterns of service to that shown in the analysis above. He noted that of his selection of examples, four men had served by the time they were 12 years old.  The Grey v. Hastings dispute was different to the case of Scrope v. Grosvenor, as it also concerned the inheritance of the earl of Pembroke, who had been killed in a tournament in 1389, without direct heir. The man who dealt the fatal blow was Sir John St. John, who also served in 1388.  Sir Reginald Grey of Ruthin had inherited the Pembroke estate and Sir Edward Hastings was challenging the inheritance. Both men had used the arms of the earl of Pembroke, or a manche gules, in the Scottish expedition of Henry IV in 1400. The case, which was brought by Grey, therefore had a wider remit than the right to bear these arms. Indeed, Hastings was using these arms  in an attempt to provoke such a challenge. The case is of interest because Sir Reginald Grey had also served in the retinue of the earl of Arundel in 1387.  Grey himself had been a deponent at the Scrope v. Grosvenor case.  Keen provides nominal evidence for those who supported Sir Reginald Grey. I have been unable to find any continuity with those who served in 1387-1388. However, Keen also describes the careers of 42 witnesses who testified for Hastings, and of these, 13 men can be found to have also served in the campaigns of the earl of Arundel, the following table.
These men have colourful careers in the military community, and it was clear that Hastings had found witnesses who could add strength to his case, due to their military experience. Robert Fyshlake is a particular relevant example, as it allows us to demonstrate the career of an archer in the English armies.  Fyshlake can be identified as serving in the retinue of the earl Marshal in 1388.  His deposition does not feature this service, as Hastings did not serve in these campaigns. His testimony states that he accompanied Edward’s father, Hugh Hastings III to Jerusalem and the Eastern Mediterranean; he had been on expedition with John of Gaunt in 1378; he had served on the ill-fated expedition of Sir John Arundel in 1379; in 1380 he had served with the earl of Buckingham in Brittany; and he had served in Scotland in 1385.  Therefore, including the campaign of 1388, Fyshlake had served in five major expeditions and demonstrates that archers could also show a professional level of service in the royal armies.
Sir John Wiltshire, who served in the retinue of the earl of Arundel in 1388,  also demonstrates an impressive military career. He testified that he served in the sea fight off La Rochelle in 1372; in Scotland in 1385; and with Gaunt in 1386.  Wiltshire also served with Richard II in Ireland in 1399.  These three men, respectively an archer, esquire and knight, demonstrate extensive careers as revealed by a combination of their own testimony and the medieval soldier database. This is mainly utilising their first hand evidence when they had seen a Hastings bearing arms. This supports the evidence provided by the Scrope v. Grosvenor case, which demonstrates that many professional soldiers served in 1387-1388, regardless of the political implications. As far as they were concerned they treated the campaign as another part of their military career. However, Plumstead and Wiltshire both secured a royal pardon in 1398, perhaps because their actions during the period of Appellant supremacy had brought them under suspicion.  It may not have been plain sailing for them in the later years of Richard II’s reign, as the earlier adherence to the Appellants had taken on a treasonous undertone. Perhaps men who served in such a professional manner would have been drawn to the Appellants’ company in opposing the royal force of de Vere in December 1387. However this need not have blocked further service to the king as demonstrated by Wiltshire’s service in 1399.
The preponderance of esquires in the Scrope v. Grosvenor evidence and also Grey v. Hastings evidence supports this claim. It can be seen that those men who testified and served in 1387-1388 had extensive military careers and they came from the ranks of esquires and archers, as well as the knights as one would expect.
The evidence of the court of chivalry has also demonstrated that a good number of the men who appeared as witnesses were also involved in the campaigns of 1387-1388. This indicates that these campaigns were not fought as a one-off experience, but for many contributed to their overall experience of warfare in the service of the English crown. The medieval soldier database enables us to check and extend the accounts of their careers given by the soldiers themselves before the court of chivalry. What is intriguing about this little bit of extra research on William Plumstead and John de Brewes, is that they appear to have had a similar service record. Both serve with Gaunt in 1378, again in 1386 and also in the expeditions of 1387-88. In addition, we can now add that they have both served with Edward, lord Despencer in the early 1370s. The ability to link soldiers in this way perhaps demonstrates that we still have a lot to discover about the shared experience of the English military community. We can also see that for these two soldiers at least – their depositions to the court of chivalry appear to be on the whole accurate, if understated, representations of their careers to 1386.
 This Soldier of the Month profile is updated from Adrian R Bell, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century (Boydell, 2004), pp.140-150 As such, it does not fully utilise the Soldier database in its current form, but concentrates on military service in 1387-1388 (apart from the profiles of John de Brewes and William Plumstead). Information on soldiers can be found on the AHRC-funded ‘The Soldier in Later Medieval England Online Database’, medievalsoldier.org (accessed 30/9/08). Thanks to Dr Tony Moore for comments incorporated into this version.
 See for instance the understated evidence given by Sir Hugh Browe, discussed in the Soldier of the Month entry for June 2008: /divided-loyalties-hugh-de-browe-john-de-calveley-and-richard-de-vernon-at-the-battle-of-shrewsbury-1403/ (accessed 30/9/08), perhaps to avoid perjuring himself, as he was testifying on behalf of Grosvenor, and would not want to emphasise his attendance on campaigns with Scrope.
 The Scrope and Grosvenor controversy, ed. N. Harris Nicolas, 2 vols (London, 1832).
 Michael Bennett, Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 82-83, 166; Philip Morgan, War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403 (Manchester, 1987), pp. 128-130.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 178, ii, p. 404.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 65, ii, p. 216. 1388: TNA E101/41/5 m 5d.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 300. 1388: TNA E101/40/39 m 1. His name has been marked with a ‘cross’, indicating that he has not passed muster and has therefore not travelled with the expedition. It is possible to speculate that he was not accepted due to his age!
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i. p. 243. 1388: TNA E101/40/39 m 1.
 TNA E101/39/7 m 3 and 4.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 75, ii, p. 244. These figures assume that the witnesses stated their correct age in 1386.
 1387: TNA E101/40/33 m 3. Enrolled protection, TNA C76/71 m 12. Enrolled attorney, TNA C76/71 m 8. 1388: TNA E101/41/5 m 4.
 1387: E101/40/33 m 1. Enrolled protection, C76/71 m 12. 1388: E101/41/5 m 12d.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 63, ii, p. 208.
 TNA E101/32/20 m.1; C 76/55 m. 33 (attorney).
 TNA C 76/56 m. 31.
 TNA C76/67 mm. 8, 17.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 164, ii, p. 370.
 Ibid., i, p. 179, ii, p. 413.
 Ibid., i, p. 174, ii, p. 397.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 190, ii, p. 450; King’s knight, Richard II: The Royal Household, p. 285, retained for life, of Wilts/Oxon, in 1386; 1394: CPR 1391-1396, p. 486 (attorney), p. 493 (protection); 1399: CPR 1396-1399, pp. 541, 552 and 558 (attorney), pp. 545 and 563 (protection); Royal pardon: C67/30 m 17, 12th June 1398. For biography see Complete Peerage, viii, pp. 219-221. Sir John Lovell could possibly also be his son who also served in Ireland in 1399, CPR 1396-1399, p. 563 (protection), ‘as John, son of John, Lord de Lovell’.
 Maurice Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry: The Case of Grey v. Hastings’, in P. Contamine , C. Giry-Deloison and M. Keen (eds), Guerre et societe en France, en Angleterre et en Bourgogne, XIVe-Xve siecle (Lille, 1992), pp. 123-42.
 Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, pp. 125-128.
 Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 207.
 Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, pp. 132-133.
 TNA E101/38/2 m.1, serving in the retinue of Buckingham.
 CPR 1396-1399, pp. 541 and 551 (attorney), p. 545 (protection).
 Plumstead: C67/30 m 15; Wiltshire: Ibid., m 3.
 Ayton, ‘Knights, Esquires and Military Service: The Evidence of the Armorial Cases before the Court of Chivalry’ in A. Ayton and J.L. Price (eds.), The Medieval Military Revolution: State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (New York, 1995), pp. 81-104.
 John L. Leland, ‘The Abjuration of 1388’, Medieval Prosopography, 15:1 (1994) pp. 115-138, see pp. 115, 135-137. Thomas, Lord Camoys was also abjured and served in the campaigns of 1387-1388.
 Complete Peerage, viii, pp. 219-221 for father and p. 221 for son.
 Leland, ‘The Abjuration of 1388’, p. 136, citing CPR 1388-1392, pp. 520 and 512, for reference to him as dead and replaced by Sir John Lovel as heir.
 Ayton, ‘Knights, Esquires and Military Service’, p. 96.
 Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, p. 133-136.
 Ayton, ‘Knights, Esquires and Military Service’, pp. 96-97.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.