The Medieval Longsword, by Guy Windsor

Mastering the Art of Arms, Volume 2: The Medieval Longsword Guy Windsor, 2014 The School Of European Swordsmanship.

This teaches the early 15th century Italian style of Fiore dei Liberi, with more general advice on sources, swords, clothing, protection, footgear, general principles of time, measure, structure and flow. debatable issues, drills, freeplay and its limitations, and warming up exercises.

Windsor promises to cover the German school in Volume 3.

Volume 2 is reviewed here and here.

Arms & Armour Fechterspiel Sword

This is a well made and nicely proportioned training sword, eminently suitable for the purpose. The slim specialized blade broadening conspicuously at the ricasso combines flexibility with the weight and balance of a fighting sword. Like its surviving prototypes, it shows a 16th century esthetic. Early fechtschwerts or fechtschwert ancestors are discussed here. Here is a a detailed review of the Fechterspiel.

Chinstraps on Medieval Helmets

On some sallets the chinstraps have survived, and there are images showing chin straps or laces on kettle hats in the Morgan Bible and on helms in the Manesse Codex.

No chinstraps have survived on medieval bascinets, and for bascinets with mail aventails they would be invisible in contemporary images.

It is well to know that it is quite rare for chin straps to survive on medieval helmets of any kind. There must be thousands of surviving morions, but very few still have their chin straps, although they are well attested in contemporary iconography. And many barbutes and Italian sallets have rivets to attach chinstraps, but no straps.

However, in Christ before Caiphas in The Très Belles Heures of Jean de Berry we see a chinstrap on a small, round skulled bascinet worn without a mail aventail, as well as on a similar, somewhat more pointed helmet covered with scales.

Note how the straps widen to where they attach to the helmet. Surviving sallet straps often split to attach to the helmet at two points on each side, or attach to a shorter strap attached at two points on each side.

There is a reference in Froissart, Vol. III, chapter cxv. to a deed of arms between Sir Thomas Hapurgan, and Sir John des Barres.

It was then the usage (or at least, it seemed to me that it was) that one laced on their bascinet with a mere thong (une seule laniere), so that the point of the lance wouldn't set itself.

Froissart records a similar tactic was used by Sir Reginald de Roye against Sir John Holland in a combat before the duke of Lancaster, although in that case the helmets were heaumes.

Of evil orders or customs in our English Fence schools, & of the old or ancient teaching of weapons, & things very necessary to be continued for the avoiding of errors, and reviving and continuance of our ancient weapons, and most victorious fight again.

There is in my opinion in our fence schools an evil order or custom in these days used, the which, if it might stand with the liking of our Masters of Defence, I think it necessary to be left. For as long as it is used, it shall be hard to make a good scholar. That is this, at the single sword, sword and dagger, & sword and buckler, they forbid the thrust, & at the single rapier, and rapier & dagger, they forbid the blow. Either they are both together best, or the thrust altogether best, or the blow altogether best. If the thrust is best, why do we not use it at the single sword, sword & dagger, & sword & buckler? If the blow is best, why do we not use it at the single rapier, rapier & poniard? But knowing by the art of arms, that no fight is perfect without both blow and thrust, why do we not use and teach both blow and thrust?

But however this we daily see, that when two met in fight, whether they have skill or none, unless such as have tied themselves to that boyish, Italian, weak, imperfect fight, they both strike and thrust, and how shall he then do, that being much taught in school, that never learned to strike, nor how to defend a strong blow? And how shall he then do, that being brought up in a fencing school, that never learned to thrust with the single sword, sword and dagger, and sword and buckler, nor how at these weapons to break a thrust? Surely, I think a down right fellow, that never came in school, using such skill as nature yielded out of his courage, strength, and agility, with good downright blows and thrust among, as shall best frame in his hands, should put one of these imperfect scholars greatly to his shifts.

Besides, there are now in these days no grips, closes, wrestlings, striking with the hilts, daggers, or bucklers, used in fencing schools. Our plowmen will by nature will do these things with great strength & agility. But the schoolmen is altogether unacquainted with these things. He being fast tied to such school-play as he has learned, has lost thereby the benefit of nature, and the plowman is now by nature without art a far better man than he. Therefore in my opinion as long as we bar any manner of play in school, we shall hardly make a good scholar. There is no manner of teaching comparable to the old ancient teaching, that is, first their quarters, then their wards, blows, thrusts, and breaking of thrusts, then their closes and grips, striking with the hilts, daggers, bucklers, wrestlings, striking with the foot or knee in the cods, and all these are safely defended in learning perfectly of the grips(1). And this is the ancient teaching, and without this teaching, there shall never scholar be made able, do his uttermost, nor fight safe.

Again their swords in schools are too long by almost half a foot to uncross, without going back with the feet, within distance or perfectly to strike or thrust within the half or quarter sword. And in serving of the prince, when men do meet together in public fight, are utterly naught and unserviceable. The best length for perfect teaching of the true fight to be used and continued in fence schools, to accord with the true statures of all men, are these. The blade to be a yard and an inch for men of mean stature, and for men of tall statures, a yard and three or four inches, and no more(2). And I would have the rapier continued in schools, always ready for such as shall think themselves cunning, or shall have delight to play with that imperfect weapon. Provided always, that the schoolmaster or usher play with him with his short sword, plying him with all manner of fight according to the true art. This being continued the truth shall flourish, the lie shall be beaten down, and all nations not having the true science, shall come with all gladness to the valiant and most brave English masters of defence to learn the true fight for their defence.

Side notes:
1 In the wars there is no observation of Stocatas, Imbrocatas, times, nor answers.
2 Long weapons imperfect.

Paragraph breaks added.

Silver, George, and Cyril G. R. Matthey. 1898. The works of George Silver: comprising "Paradoxes of defence" [printed in 1599 and now reprinted] and "Bref instructions vpo my paradoxes of defence" [printed for the first time from the ms. in the British Museum]. London: G. Bell.

George Silver and John Smythe Did Not Like Rapiers at All

In his Paradoxes of Defence, George Silver wrote:

…when the battles are joined, and come to the charge, there is no room for them to draw their bird-spits, and when they have them, what can they do with them? Can they pierce his corselet with the point? Can they unlace his helmet, unbuckle his armour, hew asunder their pikes with a stocata, a riversa, a dritta, a stramason, or other such tempestuous terms? No, these toys are fit for children, not for men, for stragling boys of the camp, to murder poultry, not for men of honour to try battle with their foes.

Sir John Smythe, in his Certain Discourses Military of 1590, didn't care for them either:

 … our such men of war, contrary to the ancient order and use military, do nowadays prefer and allow that armed men pikers should rather wear rapiers of a yard and a quarter long the blades or more than strong, short, arming swords… a squadron of armed men in the field, being ready to encounter with another squadron, their enemies…being in their ranks so close one to another by flanks, cannot draw their swords if the blades of them be above the length of three quarters of a yard or little more. Besides that, swords being so long do work in a manner no effect, neither with blows nor thrusts, where the press is so great as in such actions it is. And rapier blades, being so narrow and of so small substance, and made of a very hard temper to fight in private frays, in lighting with any blow upon armour do presently break and so become unprofitable.

Of course, Smythe was something of a crank, an unreliable ranter overly quick to dismiss changes in military technology since the 15th c. It's just as well he couldn't post on the internet.

Say what you will, Mr. Silver had a gift for invective.

Shooting Speed of Longbow and Crossbow

This video suggests that with a belt hook, the disparity in shooting speed was not as great as commonly supposed: four shots in 30 seconds for the crossbow vs. nine for the longbow. Of course, a windlass crossbow would be much slower.

Leo "Tod" Todeschini was present at the shoot, and reports that the crossbow had a draw weight of 150 lbs, far too light for a war weapon. He reckons that a belt and claw can span a crossbow up to about 350 lbs in draw, at a rate of about six shots a minute. This agrees with the contemporary Florentine chronicler Villani's account of Crecy that the English shot three times in the time it took the Genoese crossbowmen to fire once.

Before about 1390,  minutes and seconds were things known only by the very learned. A first person portrayal of an English bowman from before then might  say " I can shoot six times in the time it takes to say the Lord's Prayer, three times the speed of a crossbowman spanning from the belt."

"But, if I shoot as fast as I can, I'll use a whole sheaf of 24 arrows before French men-at-arms on foot, starting 200 yards out, are still more than 60 yards out. And this is not to be thought on, since everyone knows that an archer does the greatest injury at close range.  So I will shoot more deliberately at long range, especially since there is much advantage to marking where your first shot falls before firing the second, which can scarcely be  done if you shoot when your first shot is still in the air."

An English bowman who shoots his arrows wisely will shoot his last arrow only a few seconds before he drops his bow and takes up another weapon.





In these videos Tod Todeschini shoots heavy crossbows spanned with a belt and pulley and a goat's foot lever, getting off about three and five shots a minute respectively.  I don't think he's trying to shoot as fast as he possibly can. The belt and pulley is, of course, somewhat more cumbersome than a simple belt hook, but allows a heavier draw.

Note Tod's superior biomechanics compare to the first video: he presses downward with one leg rather than lifting his entire body as he spans the bow. The downward leg press is often visible in medieval images of crossbowmen spanning from a belt.

In comments, Jason Daub says that he can get off six shots in 34 seconds with a 240 lb. bow using a simple belt hook. It is well to know that the draw weights of crossbows and hand bows are not directly comparable, since the crossbow generally has a much shorter power stroke. A 240 lb. composite crossbow might put no more energy into the missile than an 80 lb. hand bow. And crossbows with steel prods suffer further  in comparison, because much of the stored energy goes into accelerating the relatively heavy prod.

SCA Peerage Kerfuffle

If you have no interest in the Society for Creative Anachronism, move along, nothing to see.

If you do:

The following is an excerpt of a message was sent out to the SCA, Inc. Announcements mailing list.

The Board Votes.

The Board was split on the question of the rapier peerage. Three directors voted to approve the Corpora changes and the resulting establishment of a rapier peerage because they believe that while rapier should really be recognized by the Chivalry, trying to force inclusion in the Chivalry by Board fiat would not work, and they were willing to vote yes on the proposal as a good compromise. Two directors felt rapier should be recognized as part of a peerage that recognizes all non-rattan martial arts and not a separate peerage. Two directors believed rapier should be recognized in the Chivalry. So, with a 4-3 vote against the proposed Corpora changes, which would have established a separate rapier peerage, no change will take place at this time. 

The only other action the Board took concerning rapier in the SCA was removing language dating from 1979 saying that rapier was an “ancillary” activity of the SCA and, to make it clear that we are not discarding the traditions of Crown Tourney, the Board then made it very clear that only rattan combat may be used in a Royal list. This change to Corpora received the unanimous approval of the Board. 

Response to Social Media Discussions. 

First, the Board received commentary from less than 2% of the membership over the entire 3 years and all requests for comments on the rapier peerage issue. Many people wrote in more than once, but repeating an opinion doesn’t count as a separate opinion. However, it was not the lack of commentary that influenced some Board members to vote against the proposal; it was the fact that the small amount of commentary the Board did receive trended against a separate rapier peerage. The majority of comments received in favor of recognizing rapier with a peerage said that rapier should either be included in the Order of the Chivalry or in a new peerage that included all non-rattan combat. The result of such a relatively small number of people commenting is that the opinions the Board did receive were given greater weight – if a larger number of those who supported the separate rapier peerage had commented, a different result might very well have resulted. There’s no way to know that for sure, but it underscores the importance of writing in to let the Board know your opinions about proposed changes to Corpora. 

Second, the Board did not open the Order of the Chivalry to inclusion of rapier fighters. There is a 1999 policy interpretation from the Society Seneschal (upheld by the Board at that time) specifically stating that the Order of the Chivalry is intended for rattan combatants only. It would take a new policy interpretation (which would need to be upheld by the current Board) or other Board action to change that fact. The Board’s intention in removing the “ancillary activity” language had nothing to do with making rapier knights. The Board removed the “ancillary activity” language because it was simply no longer accurate or true. It may have been true long ago when it was added to Corpora, but times have definitely changed. Rapier has permeated the fabric of the Society, and the Board felt that the language needed to be removed. However, in order to clarify that we weren’t changing the rules regarding Crown Tourneys by the deletion of the “ancillary activity” language, the Board added language restricting Crown Tourneys to rattan weapons.

I think this was the right call. A bestowed peerage wasn't the only way to recognize excellence in the Middle Ages and it isn't the only way to do it in the SCA. And often it isn't the best way. For rapier combat, an officially recognized guild-like organization like the Company of the Masters of Defense of London seems far more historically appropriate. There's no reason why the masters of such a company couldn't be given social rank equal to the bestowed peerages if the kingdom desires to. And if the people of a kingdom don't think the best rapier fighters are equal to the chivalry in dignity, making them a bestowed peerage isn't going to change that.

We need to be more aware of the many ways that rank and dignity could be recognized in the Middle Ages. The Order of Chivalry was only one approach, and it wasn't considered a peerage. There were paths to high status that didn't involve the crown at all. You could rise through the church, civic government, law or academia and the crown often had little or no involvement in the process.

That said, I think some martial arts could be profitably recognized within the current Order of Chivalry.  it seems to me that a splendid horseman who is an average rattan fighter is a more fitting member of the Order, as a medieval knight would have seen it, than a splendid rattan fighter that never rides. And a cut and thrust fighter who has studied his Fiore well, and fights accordingly, is perhaps a more worthy knight than a man who fights well with rattan because he has tailored everything he does to the specific rules of SCA sport combat.

Boucicaut's Training Regime

Jean le Maingre, called Boucicaut, (1366-1421) was known for his rigorous physical training.

And now he began to test himself by jumping onto a courser in full armor. At other times he would run or hike for a long way on foot, to train himself not to get out of breath and to endure long efforts. At other times he would strike with an axe or hammer for a long time to be able to hold out well in armor, and so his arms and hands would endure striking for a long time, and train himself to nimbly lift his arms. By these means he trained himself so well that at that time you couldn't find another gentleman in equal physical condition. He would do a somersault armed in all his armor except his bascinet, and dance armed in a mail shirt... 

When he was at his lodgings he would never ceased to test himself with the other squires at throwing the lance or other tests of war.

Froissart, Jean, Jean Alexandre C. Buchon, and Jean Froissart. Vol. 3 1812. Les chroniques de Sire Jean Froissart... / [Et du] Livre des faits du bon Messire Jean le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut. Paris: Soc. du Panthéon litt. Tr. Will McLean 2014

I should point out that Boucicaut's training was exemplary rather than typical.

I was reminded of Boucicaut when I read this.

Recreating Medieval Combat

Recreating medieval combat is hard, and there are a lot of ways to skin that particular cat.

It's a three dimensional trade space. Authenticity, affordability and safety are competing goods. Actually, it's even more complex, because even it authenticity is your primary goal, different aspects of authenticity also compete. The more realistic you make your pollaxe simulator in mass and materials, the less you can use it with the full force blows used in actual combat.

There are a lot of different ways to do it, all better in some ways and worse in others. I would say that the whole "My dojo can beat up your dojo" impulse is pretty unproductive, except that there are actually a very few schools where the founder is wallowing in "I AM YOUR SENSEI" narcissism, and should be mocked and scorned.

Mostly, I think, there are just a lot of different approaches with different tradeoffs.

And remember this: any simulation rules you select will be an imperfect model of a real fight. Once you start using the simulation as a game with winners and losers, the players will be tempted to game the system.

The late great Kurosawa illustrated this brilliantly in two duels at the beginning of Seven Samurai, embedded above.

The master swordsman Kyuzo first fights a weaker opponent with bamboo weapons. The final blows land almost at once and the opponent proudly claims a tie.

Kyuzo responds: "No. I won. If we had fought seriously, you'd have been cut and dead."

His opponent unwisely insists on a replay with sharp blades, but it turns out just as Kyuzo said.

Kurosawa does a good job in the second fight of illustrating that once you start fighting with real swords that will kill you dead, the dynamic of the fight changes a lot.

That said, not all simulation rules are equal. Some do a better job reflecting the dynamics of a fight in earnest than others. If you want to understand real combat, the closer your rules come to a real fight the better.

Recreating More Historical Formats for Deeds of Arms and Combats in the SCA

When I first joined the Society for Creative Anachronism in 1975, the default tournament format was a double-elimination tournament tree based entirely on modern sports events. Each round ended with a clear winner, based on the somewhat stylized standard rules for Society combat at that time. All blows counted as light (ignored), "kills" (powerful enough to end the fight even against an armored opponent) and "wounds"(blows that incapacitated an arm or leg, while leaving the victim otherwise unimpaired.)

In the late 1980s, I started trying to understand how medieval deeds of arms were actually structured., and how medieval armored combats were won or lost. I wasn't the first to attempt this: I know that David Friedman tried to recreate combats for an agreed number of blows much earlier.

It took about two decades to work out more realistic sets of combat  conventions that were still acceptable variants of SCA rattan combat, and formats for deeds of arms that better reflected how they were actually fought in the 12th-16th century.

Here is one set of combat conventions for armored combat from 2008. This focused on armored combat on foot in the late 14th and the 15th century, either singly or in small groups. We've used  other conventions to recreate large melees in the 12th and 15th century,  combat over the barriers in the 16th century, and recreate 16th century unarmored longsword sport combat with rattan weapons.

One key insight was figuring out that that in combats for a previously agreed number of blows, the sequence normally ended as soon as *either* champion had thrown that number. This avoided the unrealistic artifact of previous reconstructions when one fighter could hoard his last few blows until his opponent had thrown all of his, and then go on the offensive knowing that his opponent could do nothing but defend.

Another thing important thing I learned in the two decades after 1990 was that there were several different formats for consensual deeds of arms in the Middle Ages, and none of them were much like a modern double or single elimination tournament.

The third was that the classic default rules for SCA armored combat didn't recreate actual medieval armored combat well at all. Fortunately, the Society was willing to accept variant rules as acceptable variations for specific contests on a case-by-case basis.

The best and most authentic recreations of medieval combat and deeds of arms within the SCA have improved a lot since ca. 1990.

The Wounds of Richard III: an Intrusive Attack

One of Richard III's wounds is a blow that penetrated his pelvic bone after he was stabbed in the right buttock. This has been interpreted as a wound inflicted after death to humiliate him.

But I believe it could well have been struck in combat. An attacker can defeat plate harness worn with a mail skirt by moving in close and stabbing upwards with a dagger from below. This is entirely consistent with the wound on Richard's pelvis. This is easiest when the victim, like Richard, faced several assailants. Then an attacker could easily move close enough to strike a low blow upwards from behind.  But it was effective enough that even a single attacker might attempt it as in this 1403 encounter at Valencia recorded by Monstrelet:

"Then Sir Jacqes de Montenay threw down his axe, and with one hand seized Sir Pere de Moncada by the lower edge of his lames. In the other he had a dagger with which he sought to wound him underneath."

The Wounds of Richard III: an Uncovering Attack

One of the wounds on Richard III's skeleton is a shallow cut to to his right mandible. I believe that this was very probably inflicted when someone cut away his helmet strap with a double-edged dagger, leaving him helmetless. Seven other wounds are still visible on his skull and most if not all were inflicted after he lost his helmet. At least two would have instantly put him out of the fight, and been fatal soon after.

The nearly contemporary romance Tirant lo Blanc also notes this vulnerability of the sallet style helmet popular at the time. In the narrative, one of the protagonist's combats is recounted to a hermit: both the hero and his opponent tried to cut the other's helmet cord. The tactic was common enough that even the hermit, who has never borne arms but has passed some time with a skilled knight, knows a remedy: the helmet cord should be made of flexible wire wound with silk cord like a ribbon.

Charny and the Law of Arms

For Geoffroi de Charny, writing around 1350, there were three elements to the law of arms.

The first was custom: what did experienced men at arms think would be expected, absent an explicit offer or agreement otherwise?

The second was explicit agreements or promises: such as the mention of specific rules in the announcement of a particular joust. In the 14th century these left so much unsaid that Charny must have expected customary precedent to do most of the heavy lifting, and that an experienced jouster would have a mental template of more or less how a formally announced joust would be run.

But just like judges of Common Law today, Charny's judges would often encounter disputes where neither unwritten precedent nor written rules gave a clear answer, and they would be forced to decide by a combination of analogy and their own intuition of what was just. This would then become part of the body of precedent used by future judges.

Interestingly, the branch of modern law most like Charny's law of arms may well be the law of war, which is still strongly rooted in customary norms.

How Jousts Were Structured Ca. 1340

I was asked how jousts were structured around 1345. Since I'm answering, I'll share the answer.

It's understandable for a modern reader to think that the winner was chosen by something like the modern elimination tree or round robin tournament.

Understandable, but wrong.

Here's what we know. Although jousts were individual contests, the contestants were always divided into two sides, typically called dedans and dehors, literally within and without but perhaps best translated as the home team and visitors. 15th and 16th century English joust announcements would refer to challengers and comers.

The traditional division dated back to the time when jousts were preliminary events attached to mounted melee tournaments between two teams, and persisted when jousts became independent contests in their own right.

Once jousts became an independent event, the sizes of the two teams were often asymmetrical: the home team was often determined in advance, but the visitors were who turned up on the day of combat. Each visitor could run some number of courses, that is to say attack runs with the mounted lance, against a defender. At the end of the jousts, winners were chosen.

We have one set of rules for scoring a joust from Spain ca. 1330. Different regions almost certainly ran jousts somewhat differently. Geoffroi de Charny's Questions suggest that choosing a winner in a French joust was somewhat more subjective, although it probably followed a roughly similar ranking of achievements.

Charny's Questions, translated in Steven Muhlberger's Jousts and Tournaments, is a valuable but frustrating source on French jousts and tournaments around 1350: frustrating because Charny lists various debatable questions about the martial sports without providing answers.

Still, his questions make it clear that in some, but not all, French jousts a man who unhorsed an opponent would win his horse, and that there were jousts for knights and jousts for squires, and that they involved different equipment. It seems likely that as at the later Smithfield jousts of 1390, the knight's joust was run in full armor and the squire's joust used a saddle that protected the legs and made leg armor unnecessary.  Flemish records from the 1340s list prizes given to the best knight and best squire on each team.

Interestingly, Charny examines the question of a squire entering a knight's tourney and vice versa. He regards this as somewhat irregular, but not so much so that the interloper would clearly forfeit his winnings. He might or might not: he thought the question worth debating

Often the home team would be dressed in matching livery.

Charny describes a very informal process for assigning opponents: the visitors would line up on one side of the field and as soon as one of the home team rode forward one of the visitors would charge him. Because of their limited visibility with helmets on, sometimes two visitors would unintentionally charge at once.

The biographer of the Castillian knight Pero Niño noted the same informality when he jousted in France around 1405, contrasting it with what was presumably Spanish custom. "There is neither one that holds the lists, nor joust of one man against another by champions assigned"

There seems to have been a general agreement that someone that killed or injured another's horse usually owed compensation. For Charny, the possible exceptions seem to have been insufficient promtness in presenting a claim, the injuring party possibly acting as an agent for another person, damage to a borrowed horse, and damage from a dropped lance the jouster no longer controlled.

Reconstruction of a Judicial Duel, c. 1410

Freelance Academy Press sponsored a session at this year's Kalamazoo Congress on Medieval Studies: a paper by Greg Mele on the judicial duel, followed by a reconstruction of a judicial duel performed by members of the Chicago Swordplay Guild and La Belle Compagnie. The script is here. Here are the cartellos. Here is a gallery of photos from the Kalamazoo Gazette.

From about the fifteen minute mark of the first video, when we aren't speaking you can hear the pick-up plainchant choir from down the hall.

Medieval Tournament Prizes

I think it would be useful for those who hold tournaments in these times to know what sort of prizes were commonly given at the tournaments of the Middle Ages. The following is a list of prizes that were awarded at tournaments from the twelfth through the sixteenth century, as mentioned in the first two sources in the bibliography. The majority of the references are to fifteenth-century tournaments. Where a given type of prize is mentioned more than once, I have listed the number of different times it was given.

Jewelry and Gems

A golden clasp decorated with diamonds and rubies
A golden clasp
A clasp worth forty pounds
A clasp worth forty marks
A golden belt
A silver belt
A gold chain (2)
An "A" of gold with a diamond
An "E" of gold with a ruby
An "M" of gold with an emerald
A very rich ring
A ring of gold with a ruby (2)
A ring of gold with a diamond (3)
A golden ring (2)
A ruby mounted on a golden rod
A golden rod or baton (4)
A gold crown (2)
A gold circlet
A diamond (4)
A ruby (3)
A sapphire

Arms and Armor

A sword and steel gauntlets
"A set of fine steel armor such as a prudent man would wear"
An elaborately crested helmet (6)
A sword garnished to the value of three crowns

Cloth and Clothing

A velvet cap
A rich silken chaplet
Three fine pieces of cloth
A length of velvet

Animals

A swift horse with silk trappings
A bay horse
A noble courser, saddled and bridled
A barded destrier with harness (2)
A white hound with a gold collar around his neck
A bear
A talking parrot
A big dead fish ¹

Miscellaneous

A golden thorn
A horn garnished with gold
A silver gilt lion
A cup of gold worth forty marks
A golden vulture

A few other miscellaneous prizes are also worthy of mention. At a tournament at Nourdhausen during the thirteenth-century Heinrich, margrave of Meissen, set up a tree with gold and silver leaves. If a contestant broke a lance against his apponent, he was awarded a silver leaf; if he unhorsed his foe he received a gold leaf. The fifteenth-century pas d'armes of the Fountain of Tears involved three different types of combat: with axe, with mounted lance, and sword combat on foot. The challenger who fought best in each weapons form received a golden replica of the weapon with which he had fought.

Taken together the prizes give a strong impression of expensive display. A clasp worth forty pounds could represent a year's income to a fifteenth-century knight. Even the helmets frequently given as prizes in Italian tournaments (Piero de' Medici kept four in his bedroom) were primarily vehicles for elaborate and expensive crests. ² Such a helmet, crested with a silver figure of St. Bartholomew, or with "a naked cupid tied by his hands behind him to a laurel tree," might often cost more than a complete jousting harness. ³ Hosting a tournament was always an opportunity for the wealthiest men in Europe to show just how wealthy they were.

I do not wish to suggest that we should be offering costly prizes. Even our dukes do not have ducal incomes. Worse, an expensive prize puts a terrible strain on a system of running tournaments that depends almost entirely on the honor and good will of the individual contestants. We can, however, recreate much of the spirit of the medieval prizes without going to great expense. Gems and jewels are by far the most common items on my list of prizes. Fortunately, reproductions of medieval jewelry, available through the various museum catalogs and from the merchants and artisans of the Society, are often quite reasonably priced. Brass, gilding, and assorted base metals can simulate expensive gold and silver objects. Cloth, a not unpopular medieval tournament prize, is also within our budget. A single yard of fine cloth, laboriously spun, woven and dyed by hand, might well cost a fourteenth-century English knight a week's wages. ⁴ A length of such cloth was not, in the Middle Ages, out of place with the other expensive prizes given at tournaments. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution our fabric costs us much less.

I hope that this list may be of use to those who host tournaments. If nothing else it may provide an alternative to the bad custom of giving scraps of green paper as a prize to the victor. And anyone awarding a gold vulture as a tourney prize will have my undying admiration.

Notes

1. This prize was given at one of William Marshal's tournaments. A lady of noble birth awarded a pike to the duke of Burgundy, one of the contestants. He declined it, proclaiming himself unworthy, and it "passed from hand to hand among the upper barony," each man handing it on with speeches of self-deprecating generosity until it was taken home by William Marshal. It is not clear whether chivalry or prudent self-preservation was at work here.
2. Scalini, 24.
3. Scalini, 24.
4. Hart, 37 and 124.

Bibliography

Barber, Richard and Juliet Barker. Tournaments. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989. Cripps-Day, F.H. The History of the Tournament. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1918; reprint New York: AMS Press, 1982.
Duby, Georges. William Marshal: the flower of chivalry. New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.
Hart, Roger. English Life in Chaucer's Day. London: Wayland Publishers, 1973; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1973.
Scalini, Mario. "The Weapons of Lorenzo de' Medici." Art, Arms and Armour: An International Anthology. Vol. 1, ed. Robert Held. Chiasso, Switzerland: Aquafresca Editrice, 1979.



Copyright Will McLean, 1992, 1997 

Rules for Mounted Swordplay at the Pas du Perron Feé of 1463

The first shield on the right signifies that you (the defender) will be bound to confront on that Sunday, from sunrise to sunset, one after another all the knights and squires who wish to touch it with their rebated sword. All the noble men who wish, without touching the said shield, to come to the entrance of the list, will be presented with a sword as well as a lance which they may use at their discretion until it is broken or lost. Then, they may strike until the assailant has given twenty-two strokes of the sword: whoever strikes the most will win against his companion.

Thrusting was allowed: the horse of the defender, Philippe de Lalaing, was knocked to the ground by a sword thrust by Jean de Damas. Several times a champion dropped their sword and had it returned to them to continue their fight. Lalaing fought four opponents on the first day of this combat, six on the second, eight on the third and six on the last. The overall winner of the combats with lance and sword was the count of Saint-Pol. After they shivered their lances they struck great sword blows against each other until Saint-Pol had struck twenty-two blows to Lalaing's twenty. The overall winner was apparently not decided simply by the number of sword strokes alone: Josse de Lalaing struck twenty-seven blows to Philippe's twenty-one, more than Saint-Pol, but failed to hit with the lance.

These relatively simple rules should be of interest to those interested in recreating medieval armored combat. They provide an imperfect simulation of what was required to win in all out, unrestricted combat, but that's true of any practical modern simulation. And they allow an excellent recreation of one form of medieval sportive simulation of that sort of combat.

Régnier-Bohler, Danielle. 1995. Splendeurs de la cour de Bourgogne récits et chroniques. Paris: Laffont p.1170 Translation by Will McLean, 2013

Le spectacle des joutes and Splendeurs de la cour de Bourgogne

Régnier-Bohler, Danielle. 1995. Splendeurs de la cour de Bourgogne récits et chroniques. Paris: Laffont

Nadot. 2012. Le spectacle des joutes. Sport et courtoisie à la fin du Moyen Age. Rennes: PU Rennes.

Le spectacle des joutes is fortunately not actually just about jousts. It also covers tournaments and deeds of arms on foot, and focuses primarily on 1428-1470 and the zone where pas d'armes and emprises d'armes were popular. This relatively narrow focus allows detailed coverage of the chosen temporal and geographic range, and several of the encounters and sources were new to me.

Splendeurs de la cour de Bourgogne is a valuable source I found through Nadot. It includes a detailed account of the combat between Henri de Sasse and Jean de Rebremettes in 1458 and the Pas du Perron Feé of 1463. More on that pas in a later post.

Coat Armor, Badges, Devices, Liveries and Jupons

Coat armors were garments that displayed the particular arms of a specific individual. They might be worn by that individual, or the heralds that served him as direct representatives.

Badges were more general. National badges like the cross of St. George might be worn by all who were members of, or who served, that nation. Household badges might be worn by all those that were part of, served, or supported a great household.

Devices were usually more specific. They might be an emblem chosen by a single individual for limited purpose: such as a single man who sought a single opponent for a deed of arms. Often they were only slightly broader: a small group of companions who sought opponents willing to fight on equal terms.

Liveries allowed great and middling households to identify their members and allies. The most closely affiliated supporters got clothing of particular colors and a badge. Less closely affiliated supporters got the badge alone. Livery clothing was often of more than one color to increase the number  of clearly distinct liveries.

Some urban militias also wore uniform clothing. Froissart describes the Flemish army before Roosebecke:

The men from each town or castlewick had similar uniforms (parures semblables) so as to recognize one another: one company wore a coat made of  blue and yellow, another a black band on a red coat,  another white chevrons on a blue coat, another wavy stripes of green and blue, another checkered black and white, another quarterly white and red, another blue with one red quarter and another cut with red above and blue below.

The London watch of 1378 distinguished groups of wards by the color of their lances: white powdered with red stars, all red, white environed or wreathed with red, black with white stars, and all white.

Jupons were also worn over armor in the 14th and 15th century. The term seems to have generally referred to garments without heraldic arms and so distinguished from coat armor, although they might be covered with brocade or other patterns.

When did men-at-arms wear coat armor, and when did they wear something else? It's a complicated question.  On the one hand, men-at-arms wanted their individual valor and prowess to be recognized. On the other hand, coat armor was expensive, or fragile, or both.

Also, not all men-at-arms had arms to display. In 1389, John Kingston was thought worthy enough to sustain a challenge from a French knight, but he then had neither arms nor formal rank as a squire, and so both were granted by letters patent.

Further, it seems that "divers men" on the Agincourt campaign assumed arms for the campaign that they had neither inherited nor been granted. Henry V's band of brothers were allowed to keep their assumed arms, but in 1417 he prohibited assuming arms unless the bearer "possess or ought to possess the same in right of an ancestor or by gift of one having sufficient power."

And not all of the men entitled to bear coat armor on the battlefield always did so. 14th and early 15th c. manuscripts frequently show men-at-arms bearing arms on their shield or horse trappings but none on their body, and frequently a jupon of an entirely different color than any in their arms. The mid 15th c. Beauchamp Pageant shows the Earl of Warwick in coat armor for most of his battles, but in white harness fighting against the forces of Owen Glendower in 1402, identified only by his crest of a bear and ragged staff.

14th and 15th c. manuscript illuminations almost always show only a minority of the men-at-arms in a battle wearing coat armor.

While marching infantry are shown in livery coats, I've seen no clear evidence in iconography of men-at-arms wearing them in battle. Two apparent exceptions appear in MS M.804 a version of Froissart's chronicles from ca. 1412-1415. It turns out that both fol. 338r and 347v are showing Flemish urban militia as described above, but drawn as men-at-arms with full leg harness because that is the artist's default way of portraying soldiers.

One should be reluctant to draw conclusions from iconography alone.  Fortunately, the closely related Agincourt accounts of Jean Le Fèvre and Jean de Waurin shed light on who wore coat armor and when.

To tell the truth, the king of England had wanted to lodge in another village which had been taken by his herbergers, but he, who always observed proper and honourable practices, did what you will now hear. It is true that whenever he wanted to send scouts before towns or castles or any matter, he had the lords or gentlemen take off their coats of arms when they went off and put back on again when they returned. It it so happened  that on the day that the king left Bonnières to go up close to Blangy, there was a village which had been commandeered by his harbingers, but he had not been told of it. Not knowing in which village he was supposed to lodge, he went on by a bow shot and rode past it. Then he was told he had  passed it. Then he stopped and said 'As I have passed, god forbid that I should return as I have got my coat of arms on'. And he moved on and lodged where his vanguard was lodging, and moved the vanguard further forward.

...But to return to the king of England, before he crossed the river at Blangy en Ternoise, because the crossing was narrow he had six bold men of his vanguard take off their coats of arms and cross over in order to find out whether the passage was guarded. They found that there was no one seeing to its defence, so they crossed quickly.

From these accounts it appears that coat armor was particularly associated with pitched battles, and that anything that could be considered retreat could be considered dishonorable once it was put on. For that reason Henry did not want it worn when scouting, because the men would necessarily have to return to the main body, and this could be described as retreat. Also, coat armor was worn not only by commanders, but by at least some of the ordinary gentlemen.

Later, Le Fèvre and de Waurin tell how Anthony, duke of Brabant, rode in such haste to the battlefield that he left the main body of his men behind.

As he would not wait for them, because of the haste with which he had come he took one of the banners from his trumpeters, made a hole in the middle of it, and used it as his coat armour.

So, the duke did not have coat armor with him on the march, but thought it so important to wear it in battle that he made improvised coat armor from a banner.

Other contexts:

Participants in deeds of arms for single or group combat by mutual consent probably wore coat armor even more frequently than on the battlefield. The phrase "his coat of arms on his back" recurs with monotonous regularity in accounts of these combats.  The exceptions tended to be individuals who wore sumptuous finery designed for that particular deed of arms, as when Jacques de Laing wore "a robe of sanguine silk all strewn with blue tears" for one of his combats at the pas of the Fontaine des Pleurs, or to make a political statement, as when Juan de Merlo wore "a vermillion-coloured mantle, with a white cross on it, like to the badge of the French" in 1435.

Jousters might wear their personal coat armor, but often wore team uniforms, often designed for a particular joust, or other garments according to their fancy.

Tournaments, in the traditional sense of mounted melee combats, had become quite rare by 1350 everywhere outside Germany.

King René, when he attempted to revive the tournament west of the Rhine  ca. 1460, expected that coat armor would be the norm for noble participants. Illuminations of tournaments ca. 1350 are more ambiguous, with some participants wearing their arms on their clothing  and others wearing clothing completely unlike their arms.

Curry, Anne. 2000. The battle of Agincourt: sources and interpretations. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 

Modus armandi milites ad torneamentum.

Primo fit ignis et extenditur tapetum, et spoliatur ad camisiam; pectine parat capillos, in pede calciatur  de quyr, induit ocreas, gall. muscylers, in tibiis de ascer ou de quyr boily. Deinde quysouns in femoribus et genicularia, gall. genulers. Deinde aketoun, et deinde camisia de Chartres et coyfe de Chartres , et pelvim in qua debet esse cerveylere defendens capud ne contiguetur pelvis cum capite. Deinde loricam quyrée, cote armée, in qua fuerit signa militis, et gayne payns ou gayns de baleyne sa espeye, .i. gladius, et flagellum et galeam, .i. heaume. 
 
Ad Bellum: aketoun, plates de Alemayne ou autres cum, aketoun ut supra et bone gorgeres, gladius, haches a pik, et cultellus. Scutum raro portatur ad bellum quia impediret plus quam promoveret.

Ad Hastiludia: aketoun, haubert, gambisoun, quod fit de panno serico et consimilibus, si sit preciosum, nuelere ke sunt plates de ascer, sicut bacyn et galea.



First the fire is made and the carpet spread, and he is stripped to his shirt and his hair is combed in preparation, and leather shoes put on his feet and greaves, in French muscylers, on his legs, of steel or of cuir bouilli . Then on his thighs he puts cuisses and knee pieces, in French genulers. Then an aketon, a shirt of Chartres and coif of Chartres, and a bascinet with a lining to keep it from contacting the head. Then body armor fashioned of leather, coat armor on which should be the knight's device, gayne payns* or whalebone gauntlets, his espeye, i.e. sword, and a riding whip, and a helmet, i.e. heaume.

For War: an aketon, plates from Germany or elsewhere, and in addition to the aketon as above, a good gorget, sword, axe with a spike, and a long knife. The shield is rarely carried in war as it hinders more than it helps.

For Jousts: aketon, hauberk, and gambeson, which is made of silken cloth and the like, and can be so costly that the steel plates, basinet and helmet are as nothing in comparison.

*A type of gauntlet

From BL MS Additional 46919, compiled by William Herebert before his death around 1333. The author, writing in Latin but describing gear unknown to Cicero, was frequently forced to lapse into contemporary French.
 
Meyer, Paul, Gaston Bruno Paulin Paris, Antoine Thomas, and Mario Roques. 1884. Romania. Paris: Société des amis de la Romania [etc.].  P. 530 Translation copyright Will McLean 2013