Mounted troops very rarely comprised more than 10 percent of the fighting men in the armies of Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307). However, these soldiers received enormous attention from contemporaries and have also been the focus of considerable scholarly investigation. The intense interest in mounted fighting men, both in their own day and among modern scholars, results from two factors. First, these troops were the best-equipped, and often best-trained, men in the army. Secondly, and more importantly, many mounted fighting men were drawn from the highest strata of society, including both the knightly class and nobility.

Historians have long understood that military service on horseback constituted an exceptional economic investment in arms, equipment, and not least in the horses themselves. However, to date, there have been only limited attempts to examine the costs of horses used for combat purposes, and particularly the ways in which large-scale warfare, the concomitant deployment of large numbers of such horses on campaign, and the subsequent death of many of these animals affected their price. In this context, it is important to note that a horse that was suitable for combat not only was sufficiently large and strong to carry an armored man as well as armor for itself in combat, but also was trained to do so. Horses of this type were denoted in the sources as equi cooperti.

In their well-crafted studies on English warfare during the thirteenth and fourteenth century, the medieval military historians Andrew Ayton and David Simpkin have published useful tables for the mean valuations given by royal officials to horses that were used in combat by knights and other mounted troops in the armies of the English kings during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. However, neither Ayton nor Simpkin attempted to examine the impact of ongoing, large-scale warfare on the prices of horses that were deployed in combat, nor were they focused on examining the range of individuals who were able to purchase warhorses. In addition, when compiling their tables, these scholars missed some horse inventories and evaluation rolls for the period 1296–1307. For example, both Ayton and Simpkin rely for their data in 1298 on the horse evaluation roll that was edited by Henry Gough in 1888.