This is one of these questions that might rest on my own misconceptions, so bear with a little background.
The English feudal military system was supposed to work by a king calling up his vassals, each of whom was supposed to bring with him a specific number of soldiers, for some preset time like forty days. In return the vassals got land and all the rents and privileges that went with those lands. In practice, the king often preferred to hire mercenaries, because so long as you kept paying them the mercenaries didn’t go home after forty days. So the English king would levy a tax called “scutage” (which I think means “shield-money”) which the vassals could pay in exchange for not being called up for military service. Then the king would use the scutage to hire his mercenaries and go off and plunder France or somewhere. Some barons got quite upset at the phenomenal cost of scutage, or claimed that their feudal oaths only bound them to service in England and not overseas, so they shouldn’t have to pay scutage.
My question: why were so many of these noble vassals so overwhelmingly reluctant to go to war, so much so that they’s pay an exorbitant scutage for the privilege of staying home? As I understand it, medieval warfare wasn’t particularly risky for a knight; most of your enemies were poorly armed and armored, and if they got you at a disadvantage they’d sooner capture you and ransom you than kill you. Warfare offered you glory, a chance to get on the good side of your king, and, most importantly, loot and plunder. Yet so many knights went to great financial expense and political risk to avoid fighting. Why?
WAG - while said knight was out in the field with the king, accompanied by most of the able-bodied soldiers available, who’s minding the store? Your home and lands are vulnerable to attack by a neighbor, a band of Norsemen, your younger brothers, etc. This, combined with what it cost to outfit and feed a knight and retinue, it might really be cheaper to pay a tax. Of course, like any gamble, going to war may net you a whole lot more money, more favor with the king, more lands, and a better political standing. So, you go to war if you feel your land is pretty safe, and pay the tax if it is at risk.
You may be underestimating the physical risk of war to the knight. Given the medical care available at the time, a significant wound was generally fatal. Standard treatment for a major injury to an arm or leg was amputation, with high risk of infection and death; while standard treatment for internal injuries was last rites.
Also, captured knights were not necessarily always ransomed, due to the expense, and even when they were, it might not be for years.
Getting a slot in the Frankish National Guard not being an option, simply buying your way out might be a pretty attractive alternative at any price.
Not only is no one minding the store, but if all your vassals are out fighting, no one is tending the fields, harvesting, and doing all the other things to bring in income. And anyone lost in battle makes a serious dent in a lord’s holdings.
As for battlefield dangers, just being in a camp was probably just as dangerous as fighting due to the poor sanitation and number of contagious diseases. During the crusades, if you were under siege, the easiest thing to do was to hold tight and wait for your attackers to die of heat prostration and dysentary.
“Economic growth and the accompanying increase in monetary circulation made it convenient for both lord and vassal to commute military service for a cash payment at cetain times, for the hosting seldom provided the lord with an effective army, while the vassal was increasingly interested in developing his landed property. Moreover, for rulers anxious to develop their financial resources, the regularization of rights of relief, escheat and wardship, together with the usual feudal aids, became a guaranteed source of revenue.”
and tangentially ( referencing England, specifically )…
“Moreover, the administrative efficiency of the English kings which had created this situation, also led them to employ knights of the shire in an ever-widening range of local governmental duties, particularly the obligation to serve on juries providing information for judicial inquiries. As their military role waned, the knights found their time consumed by local governmental business, and to many, the obligations of knighthood seemed to outweigh the social advantages. In the thirteenth century therefore the number of knights in England began to diminish.”
Quotes from pg.38 and 40 of THE TWO CITIES, Medieval Europe 1050-1320, by Malcolm Barber .
.