|
MEDIEVAL WARFARE
WIELDING THE WEAPONS OF WAR: John Clements Association for Renaissance Martial Arts
Feet lopped off at the knee and ankle, heads from shoulders neatly shorn, bodies carved from neck to hip‑bone, hands and arms sent spinning off, through the ribs he thrusts his sift bale, though the head's already gone. From a fourteenth‑century poem by William of Apulia Although the Hundred Years War is filled with incidents when adversaries showed one another gracious and considerate behavior, the underlying reality in that conflict, as in any other, involved trying to kill or disable the enemy before he killed or disabled you. In the words of a fourteenth‑century French constable, as related by the great chronicler of the age, Sir John Froissart, "it is better to hurt one's enemy than to be hurt by him. Such is the fate of war.” (1) During this period, the growing use on the battlefield of well‑armed infantry caused warfare in Europe to become bloodier. (2) Arguably, another factor in producing longer casualty lists was the development of improved weaponry and an increasing skill in its employment. Despite an extensive literature on the Hundred Years' War, relatively little has been written concerning the actual use of weapons by individual warriors or the martial skills such men required in order to use them. How did a medieval fighting man wield these deadly instruments that were the tools of his trade, tools designed to inflict severe damage of the sort described by William of Apulia? And how did the individual learn his trade? Systematic investigation into these topics is still in its infancy. Consequently, even among academic historians well‑versed in the Middle Ages, there exist many gaps and misconceptions concerning the reality of medieval combat. By exploring the dynamics at work in hand‑to‑hand fighting during the period of the Hundred Years War, the current article will attempt to correct some of these misconceptions and fill in some of the gaps. It will delve into the subject of historical fencing from the perspective of how the necessary skills were developed and applied; and it will examine the arms and armor used by combatants, in particular, that defining weapon of a medieval warrior, his sword. Medieval Martial Arts and the Training Manual The study and practice of medieval martial arts is a newly emerging field combining traditional scholarship with hands‑on investigation. To build a meaningful understanding of his subject, the Döbringer martial artist must conduct research in a variety of academic fields including military history and the history of fencing, art, literature, language, and archaeology. The knowledge gained from these studies both informs and is informed by actual hands‑on expertise of a sort that can be gained only by "wielding the weapons of war." Careful research into the use of medieval arms and armor (as distinct from mere costumed re‑enactment) has greatly expanded our understanding beyond that provided by traditional academics and arms curators. Such research centers on the use of arms in a historically accurate and martially sound manner, taking into account the methods described in contemporary manuals of arms. The result has been a much greater appreciation for the sophistication and effectiveness exhibited by teachers of the past. The later centuries of the Middle Ages witnessed the appearance of a growing number of martial handbooks (fechtbucher), designed to impart fighting skills, skills that a trained warrior would need in order to employ his weapons with brutal efficiency. While these handbooks are indeed worthy of study, they have largely remained, in the words of one authority, a "historiographical curiosity." (3) The majority, not a few of which are illustrated, were produced by either German or Italian masters at arms, most notably the great Swabian practitioner and teacher, Johannes Liechtenauer (4), and his Bolognese counterpart, Fiore Dei Liberi. (5) In addition, there are works by Hanko Doebringer (6), Sigmund Ringeck (7), Peter von Danzig, Halls Talhoffer (8), Hans Leckuechner, Paulus Kal, Filippo Vadi (9), and Pietro Monte as well as a number of anonymous authors. From England, only two obscure fourteenth century works on swordplay survive; while there are no known French fencing texts predating the 1570s. (10) Although most of the handbooks were generated outside of geographical regions normally associated with the Hundred Years War, their contents reflect both the training and practices of contemporary warriors throughout most of western Europe. The techniques they called for involved arms and armor that were in general use among warriors fighting in the greatest conflict of the later Middle Ages. Among the authors were both knights and commoners. They taught skills useful not only in warfare, but also in judicial combat, dueling, tournaments, (11), and even day‑to‑day self‑defense. The audience for these works stretched beyond the warrior class: the practice of martial arts was advocated by humanists as a means of achieving physical fitness and even some clerics practiced arms or advocated their study for self‑defense and recreation. The handbooks constructed elaborate fighting systems suitable to both armored and unarmored combat. They acquainted readers with the use of all manner of weapons including not only swords, but also daggers, axes, staffs, war hammers, and various pole‑arms. They dealt with the differing methods necessary for mounted and unmounted combat. They described techniques for grappling and wrestling with an enemy, vital components of the close quarter, no‑holds‑barred fighting experienced in medieval battles. They even offered advice on the ethics involved in such combat. Out of use and largely ignored for centuries, these medieval manuals are only now coming back into the consciousness of researchers and practitioners. The process of recovery has been slow, in part due to the considerable difficulties involved in both the translation and interpretation of these texts. (12) Only in later centuries, as fencers became hemmed in by rules of deportment and the conventions of etiquette, did they come to regard as "unscientific" the earlier fighting styles laid out in these manuals, styles designed to prepare a man to face a wide range of arms and armor. To the practitioners of an increasingly formal and sporting swordplay, the more dynamic, flexible, and inclusive methods of the past appeared (incorrectly) to be little more than a mix of chaotic gimmicks unconnected by any larger "theory." In reality, the older theories of combat were broader and more developed than the much more limited styles of fencing common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The techniques taught by medieval masters of defense involved moves known to work in combat, moves that they named, perfected, and then systematically passed on to others. Over the centuries, warriors compiled a repertoire of such techniques and the manuals passed them down as a legacy of acquired wisdom and experience. (13) Skill, Strength, or Practice? The late medieval handbooks are full of advice on the need and value of "striking strongly" and "fencing with force." The great fourteenth century master, Johannes Liechtenauer advised, "Hit hard and be good at it." He went on to tell his reader, "Mit ganzem leib ficht/was du starck gerest treibn." "If you want to strike strongly, use the whole body." (14) This advice was echoed by most later medieval writers who taught martial techniques. In his 1410 treatise, Flos Duellatorum in Armis, the Italian master Fiore dei Liberi included as one of four animals whose attributes symbolized the fencing art the elephant, representing strength (fortitudo), which Liberi said "carried all." During the 1440s, Master Sigmund Ringeck stated: "This is the first tenet of the longsword: learn to strike properly from both sides so that you learn to fence well and with strength." Ringeck also admonished his readers: "to fence with your whole body and with force is your wish.” (15) A decade later, Peter von Danzig began a general lesson on longsword use with the instruction to "fence strongly ... fight with all your body and drive with strength.” (16) The anonymous mid‑fifteenth century fighting manuscript, "Gladiatoria", stated "strike him with the whole strength where you know you can hit him ... so that you can bring him to the ground.” (17) Early modern fencing manuals echoed their medieval predecessors: the Codex Wallerstein indicated the importance of strength in fighting at close quarters (18), and George Silver in his 1599 treatise, Paradoxes of Defence, wrote of the cutting power of "the blow being strongly made.” (19) The historical record clearly demonstrates not only that swords and other edged weapons can cause terrible wounds, but that human beings can sustain considerable injury and still continue fighting. The idea, therefore, was to take out an opponent as quickly, efficiently, and completely as possible: you did not want to hit someone only to find that your blow was not forceful enough to stop him from hitting back. As Silver said, it was strong blows that wounded and killed an opponent, not light touches or short stabs. Cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh alone might have no effect if delivered against an armored opponent. If they were executed with appropriate strength, however, they could traumatize the underlying tissue and bone, thus incapacitating without actually cutting the target. On a late medieval battlefield, a warrior would encounter and have to overcome various forms of armor, ranging from reinforced leather to plate. Consequently, while he could never count on using blows sufficient only for fighting unarmored opponents, a cut or thrust that might not penetrate the opponent's armor could still cripple him if administered with enough force. At the same time, the role of strength can be and often is overstated. While medieval handbooks stressed the importance of strength, they did not ignore the equally important role played by skill and technique. Today, one all too often encounters the stereotype of medieval knights relying largely or even exclusively on sheer strength for their fighting prowess. Throughout much of the last two centuries, the popular view, not infrequently reinforced by inaccurate scholarship, has seen pre‑rapier fencing as almost entirely about strength and endurance with minimal attention paid to agility, finesse, or technique. The myth that knights and men‑at‑arms were little more than witless bashers relying on brute strength, clumsy weapons, and the weight of their armor has been highly persistent in the literature. The dean of medieval military studies, Sir Charles Oman, did a disservice in his classic 1885 essay, The Art of War in the Middle Ages, when he alleged that for most of the medieval centuries, battlefields were primarily the scene of an untutored clash between mounted knights encased in heavy armor. Such sentiments frequently find their echo in more recent literature. For example, the noted Czech arms historian, Eduard Wagner, wrote in the 1960s, "The mastery of the sword required considerable strength more than skill.” (20) Two influential theatrical combat researchers, Craig Turner and Tony Soper, describe such a contest as follows: The technique of medieval sword fighting was hardly subtle. The winner was usually the biggest and strongest knight who could continue pressing the attack, an attack consisting almost exclusively of slashing, smashing blows. This was the time of the two‑handed or the 'hand-and‑a‑half' (bastard) swords. Great strength and endurance, not skill, was praised. (21) Robert Morsberger, also an expert on Elizabethan theater, has observed that "swordplay in the days of knightly paladins was an endurance contest more than a test of skill," (22) while French fencing pundit, C.L. de Beaumont, stated confidently, "in the Middle Ages swords were heavy and clumsy and great strength rather than skill was required to wield them." (23) Unfortunately, some of the blame for these views lies with those who should have known better, fencing masters of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who, in comparing the arms and armor of the past to their own featherweight fencing tools, assumed that the former must have been impossibly ponderous and unwieldy. Opinions of this nature were commonly articulated by such fencing authorities as Egerton Castle in his Schools and Masters of Fence (1885), Jacopo Gelli, Larte dell'a7mi in Italia (1906), and Gabriel Letainturier‑Fadin, in two works, Le Duel a travers les Ages (1892) and Les joueurs dispee a travers les sz~cles (1905). (24) Among them, Castle is perhaps the most notorious as well as the most influential proponent of the mistaken claim that medieval warriors relied only on strength. In the same year Oman penned his famous essay, Castle declared: The rough untutored fighting of the Middle Ages represented faithfully the reign of brute force. The stoutest arm and the weightiest sword won the day. Those were the days of crushing blows with mace or glaive, when a knights superiority in action depended on his power of wearing heavier armor and dealing heavier blows then his neighbor, when strength was lauded more than skill. (25) Castle went on to praise the sixteenth century as the period "when something more than brute strength became a requisite in personal combat.” (26) In 1887, another noted historical fencing writer, Gustav Hergsel, added his voice to the list, asserting that in wielding the sword "the heroic master was determined not by conditioning and technique, but by strength." (27) By contrast to these later experts, fencing masters of earlier periods did not subcribe to the oversimplified view that strength carried all before it. The myth of medieval swordsmen having to fight by strength alone is debunked from the start in the writings of Johannes Liechtenauer, who refers to buffel or "buffalos," a demeaning term for untrained fencers who, relied on brute strength rather than skillful technique. (28) While realizing that strength was a significant attribute of the warrior, Liechtenauer opposed the idea that it could simply be substituted for skill. In his view, one could (and should) be both skillful and strong. He laid out the proper relationship between these two key attributes when he stated "above all the things you should learn to strike correctly, if you want to strike strongly (29)," also indicating that "a weak man would more certainly win with his art and cunningness than a strong man with his strength. “ (30) In the late‑fourteenth century, Hanko Döbringer, writing on how to face multiple opponents, stressed the importance of technique. For example, Döbringer advocated the Eysern Pforte (a position with the blade in front toward the ground and pointed off to the side) that made it possible for the skilled fighter to "fight against four or six farmers" (to whit, untrained men who presumably relied on their strength alone). (31) Nor can one easily find sources from the early modern period that labeled the fighting methods of preceding centuries as crude, artless, or inferior. Indeed, contrary to the opinions of fencing authors of a more recent vintage, those of the sixteenth century generally spoke of the old ways as being both sound and wise. For example, in 1598, the English master George Silver, declared forcefully in his Paradoxes of Defense, "there is no manner of teaching comparable to the ancient teaching." (32) In an echo of the contemporary debate between "the ancients and the moderns," there were a number of sixteenth century masters who lamented the decline of martial skills in their own day and looked back to some earlier golden age. The Codex Wallerstein indicated the greater importance of skin when the combat grew deadly: allowing that "in a friendly combat strength has always advantage," the author indicates that "a weak fighter in a serious combat can be equal to a strong opponent, if he has previously learned agility, reach, fighting‑tricks and death‑tricks." (33) In the 1480s, Italian master of arms Filippo Vadi put it even more starkly, "cunning wins [over] any strength.” (34) Although training for lethal combat was the overwhelming concern of warriors, there were occasions when one might need merely to restrain or subdue an opponent, such as dealing with a drunken friend or irate relative. Even on the battlefield, the issue of subduing rather than injuring might arise in respect to taking a prisoner for future ransom, an important and lucrative consideration of medieval warfare. Since weapons are, by their very nature, designed to do injury, fighting techniques intended to safely incapacitate or immobilize an opponent without serious harm put an even greater premium on skill and training than do those designed simply to kill or maim. (35) In addition to both strength and skill, all of the handbooks advocated regular practice as a necessary adjunct to learning the fighting arts. In Hartmann von Aue's thirteenth‑century tale, Iwein, we read that "with practice the weak man can too learn to fight far better.” (36) Hanko Döbringer left no doubt as to its importance: "Practice is better than art, because your practice will suffice without art, while the art means nothing without practice.” (37) A 1434 work entitled Regimento para aprender a1gunas causas das armas by King Duarte I of Portugal (1433‑1438) reminded readers that the principle foundation of learning martial arts was practice, since, once having been learned, the proper methods will not be forgotten.” (38) Nor were practice sessions to be undertaken in a perfunctory manner. Since practice was not for show, but a preparation for real combat, potentially a matter of life and death, men had to perform the techniques with the same strength and speed they would need to exhibit on the battlefield. The importance of all three elements‑strength, skill, and practice‑comes through clearly in a medieval legend concerning the supposed origins of the warrior class, a legend found in various Spanish works, including Gutierre Diaz de Gamez's early fifteenth‑century biography of the great Spanish knight, Pero Nino. (39) According to Diaz, the warrior estate was born when society first sought a means of selecting its fighting men. Men began by sending into battle those who practiced "the mechanical arts," such as stone cutters, carpenters, and smiths, on the grounds that these were men "accustomed to strike great blows, to break hard stones, to split wood with great strength, to soften iron which is very hard," believing that they would "strike mightily and give hard blows" and would thus conquer their enemies. When such men were sent into the fray, however, "some were stilted in their armor, and some lost their strength through fear, and some took to flight, so that all their host was brought to defeat." Next to be chosen were the butchers "who were cruel and accustomed to shedding blood without pity, men who slaughtered great bulls and strong beasts." It was thought that these "would strike without mercy and without fear" avenging the earlier defeat. Instead, when well‑armed and sent into the forefront of battle, their courage failed them and they too took to flight. Finally, it was decided that in the next battle, men would be stationed on the heights to watch the battle unfold and identify those who displayed a truly martial character, men who fought with good heart and struck good blows and who did not give in to any fear of injury or death, but who stood fast. This time, when the battle was won, society honored these men and placed them in a special group where they would do no work other than train for war. This tale brings home the fact that its author viewed the ideal attributes of a warrior as a combination of strength, skill with arms, and courage, that would be reinforced through constant practice. Late Medieval Swords and Swordfighting Techniques During the closing centuries of the Middle Ages, as use of plate armor became widespread, the diversity of sword forms also increased considerably. (40) In earlier periods, large hand‑held shields had placed practical limits on the length of the sword that a warrior could effectively wield. Now, as plate replaced shields in protecting the human body, thereby freeing up the warrior's other hand, the number of long‑bladed swords proliferated‑war‑swords, great‑swords, bastard swords, estocs, grossmessers, etc. Held in a double‑hand grip, these versatile weapons opened up a range of new tactical options far exceeding those available to the shorter sword used single‑handedly. Shield bearers with their shorter swords had fewer possible targets, feints, or lines of attack; consequently, the shift to longswords necessitated learning an array of new strikes, counter‑strikes, and parries. It also led to more use of grappling and wrestling in combat, as well as more complicated stabbing attacks less applicable in sword and shield combat. In the Flos Duellatorurn, Master Fiore dei Liberi described the thrust as the most dangerous form of sword attack, one that was responsible for more deaths than any other stroke. Filippo Vadi referred to his ponta (thrust) as the "highest master" and Pietro Monte declared his stoccata vel puncta (straight thrusting point) the primary component of his attack. And yet, an edge could also deliver a crippling blow, as William of Apulia suggests when considering certain swords that were especially long and sharp, including "those in the habit of cutting a body on two.” (41) Great stress was placed upon keeping the sword well extended toward an adversary. Hanko Döbringer commented on the need for a swordsman to straighten the hands when cutting, stating that "when he strikes to you and ... does not straighten [his] arms with the stroke, his sword is shortened.” (42) Peter von Danzig described a long-guard position (langer ort), with the arms extended straight out and the weapon pointed at the opponent's face, as being among the most secure when blades are suddenly crossed. (43) While this same position is found illustrated in the three known manuscript editions of the Flos Duellatorum where the name posta longa is clearly visible for the posture. (44) The author of the Codex Wallerstein supplied advice that had the same end in mind When you fight ... against someone ... you should stretch your arms and your sword far from you, and put yourself into a low body position (die Waage), so that you have a good grip and long reach in your sword .... (45) By the period of the Hundred Years War, longswords had become the basic weapon used in the study of fencing. They proved highly effective in learning such core fighting skills as footwork, timing, reach, and the parrying of blows, all of which are necessary for wielding any hand weapons. The actual techniques for employing longswords found in historical manuals differ considerably from those depicted in Hollywood sword fights and other popular (mis)conceptions of medieval fencing. The sword was not usually wielded in the conventional hack and slash "style"; instead, it was used in a tighter, more closely controlled manner that employed offensively not only the point and forward edge, but also the back edge and even the hilt. Fifteenth century fencing instructors recommended a wide variety of techniques: such as using the back or "short" edge of the sword for cutting, grappling with opponents, striking with hilt or pommel, or even seizing the opponent's hilt or blade. (46) Many techniques involved thrusting, contrary to a not‑uncommon, but incorrect assertion that point-fencing did not develop until after 1500. Another feature of medieval combat unseen in cinema swordplay) was half‑swording‑gripping the blade of one's own sword with the second hand to either deflect attacks or help guide thrusts and strikes almost as one would handle a spear, poleaxe, or quarterstaff. These and other such simple yet vicious techniques appear prominently in medieval texts that are, after all, designed to give the warrior at edge in deadly combat. In the era of the Hundred Years War, the longsword became not only the principal training weapon, but also the symbol of chivalry and courtly honor, used extensively in judicial duelling. When in combat, a trained warrior equipped with such a weapon could guard, parry, slice, as well as cut and thrust. Swung with both hands, the longsword was capable of delivering devastating wounds. Speaking of an English defeat at the hands of the Scots, Froissart tells of Sir Archibald Douglas who wielded before him an immense sword, whose blade was two ells long, which scarcely another could have lifted from the ground, but he found no difficulty in handling it, and gave such terrible strokes, that all on whom they fell were struck to the ground; and there were, none so hardy among the English able to withstand his blows. (47) Nevertheless, on the battlefield, longswords still faced competition from other popular weapons including the battleaxe, poleaxe, spear, and various shorter arming swords and bastard swords (a term originally referring to the acutely tapering shape of certain blades), all of which were popular and appeared frequently in literature of' the period. In medieval combat, the choice of weapons was a highly individual matter. Modern scholarship has raised an interesting question in respect to the use of medieval swords: did one actually cut an opponent or merely batter him? According to one school of thought, swords were relatively incapable of delivering cutting blows against maile armor, whether it consisted of metal ring links sewn to a leather garment or interlocking chain. Instead, swords were intended more to "bludgeon" or "bruise" an adversary; fighters sought to injure by blunt trauma or the shock of broken bones. Undoubtedly, blunt trauma injuries did play a substantial role in medieval combat, The edge of a swordblade swung with modest force can deliver a significant impact, even if that edge is fairly blunt. It is largely for this reason that padded garments (gambesons) were regularly worn under medieval armor. Modern experiments on raw meat clad in mail and underlying padding have demonstrated that flesh can be severely traumatized by hits that do not penetrate either layer of protection. Repeated blows can pulverize meat and bone. On the other hand, the blunt trauma argument can easily be overstated. Evidence from medieval accounts and images, from skeletal remains unearthed at battle sites, and from modern experiments pitting sharp swords against accurate reproductions of maile (48) all indicate that swords were effective cutting weapons. Hardened and well‑honed sword blades when used by well‑trained warriors were fully capable of delivering penetrating blows. Even semi‑sharp blades could sometimes cut through armor and slice meat and bone in a horrendous fashion. Although maile with its associated under‑padding did absorb or deflect some of the force of a swordblow, such a weapon in skilled hands was capable of splitting, popping, or rending the links of which maile was composed and delivering a cutting blow to the wearer. Even the best armor was never full‑proof; and armor, like the weapons it was designed to fend off, varied considerably in quality and composition. Some was composed of thicker rings or a tighter "weave"; some was made of softer links. (Interestingly, softer links tended to "give" more when struck, an ability that may on occasion have actually lessened the severity of an injury.) Even the location of the blow was critical: swords striking against portions of the maile loose enough to bunch up frequently had a less damaging impact on the wearer than comparable blows delivered at points where the netting was stretched more tightly. As Froissart indicates, French knights preparing for battle at Commines expressed confidence in the cutting ability of their weapons: [Our enemies] are badly armed, whilst our spears and swords are of well tempered steel from Bordeaux; and the haubergeons they wear will be a poor defence, and cannot prevent our blows from penetrating through them. (49) If, indeed, medieval swords did not cut effectively against maile armor, but instead did their damage by mere concussive impact, one wonders, why bother to sharpen them at all? If blunt trauma injuries had been the principal goal of swordfighting, a well‑honed blade would have been superfluous. The weight of medieval swords has also been a subject of great misunderstanding. (50) Typical of this is the following quote from the 1930 Book of Fencing by Eleanor Baldwin Cass: With a few rare exceptions, the sword, throughout Europe in 1450, was still a heavy, clumsy weapon. It was designed for dealing downright armor‑hewing blows, with but little point work in its manage, and for balance and ease of fence it was about as convenient as an axe. [The sword was] an armor‑hewer that was little better than a club. (51) Later in the same decade, a work co‑authored by arms‑curator Charles Ffoulkes and Captain E.C. Hopkinson, echoed these sentiments:
The belief that medieval swords were overly heavy and awkward to use, a view that has taken on the proportions of urban folklore, perplexes those who today exercise with them on a fairly regular basis. Such views could only have been arrived at by inappropriate comparison between the lightweight sport fencing tools of the modern era, designed for use in highly stylized, unarmored bouts between individual fencers, and their deadly, utilitarian predecessors. In fact, medieval swords were in general well‑made, light enough to be used with agility, and capable of delivering swift, but dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities. They were far from being "clubs with edges." As a leading sword expert, Ewart Oakeshott, has correctly stated: Medieval swords are not unwieldably heavy...their average weight...[being] between 2'/2 lb. and 3/2 lbs. Even the big hand and‑a‑half 'war' swords rarely weight more than 41/2 lbs. (53) Unhorsed and Helpless? It was once believed that the late medieval warrior encased in plate armor, when afoot became a helpless figure, somewhat akin to a turtle turned on its back. Statements to that effect abound in the literature. "By the 1400s horsemen had become clanking tanks. Unhorsed, a knight was at his foe's mercy.” (54) "When unhorsed or surrounded [the knight] became a poor crustacean and an easy prey for common foot soldiers. (55) According to Richard Barber, a dismounted knight was "unable to move swiftly"‑due, not to the weight of his armor, but "because his armor was not designed for movement on foot”‑making him "easy prey to the dagger of a lightly armed soldier thrust between the joints of his carapace." (56) Such views fail to take into account improvements in late medieval plate armor that enabled armorers to construct suits flexible enough for an athletic man to move about with roughly eighty percent of' normal agility, even performing cartwheels and rolls. (57) As modern experiments have demonstrated, a man in well‑fitting plate‑armor has more mobility than his counterpart wearing a full coat of heavy chain‑link armor and carrying a large shield. In short, far from being helpless and ineffectual, dismounted men‑at‑arms wearing plate armor and wielding a longsword proved under normal conditions to be formidable adversaries. Given this fact, it is not surprising that the fencing literature of late medieval and early modem Europe shows a clear preference for foot combat. At the same time, most training for combat was accomplished on foot and unarmored‑as the fencing manuals of the age reveal. Despite the familiar image of mounted knights in heavy armor dominating medieval battlefields, almost all major battles of the later Middle Ages (sieges in particular) were actually fought and decided on foot. By the era of the Hundred Years War, armies were coming to rely increasingly on their infantry. Infantry armies fought battles during the early fourteenth century using distinctive, and in most cases, decisive tactics. This occurred throughout Europe.... Only when infantry was used to support the knights, and when archers were used to soften the enemy in preparation for cavalry charges, were great victories had in medieval battles.... While cavalry alone rarely won battles, infantry alone sometimes did. (58) Andrew Ayton describes a tactical revolution in the 1300s that involved the way English aristocrats conducted themselves in battle. (59) Increasingly, they abandoned mounted charges in favor of foot combat. Ayton notes the use of such tactics in both the Scottish border wars of the period and across the channel in France. By the 1360s, Englishmen serving in the White Company had introduced the tactic into Italian warfare.(60) As a result of this change, the English modified their plate armor to allow for easier use in foot combat. According to Ayton, this tactical revolution comes though in English writings from the period that describe traditional deeds of chivalry being conducted on horseback, while actual combat was carried out on foot and in combination with archers. The Declining Use of Shields By the time the Hundred Years War began, full length shields were disappearing from the battlefield. Dismounted combat with shields was much less common in European warfare by the 1300s and by the 1400s it was clearly uncommon. An English priest of the 1330s named William Herebert could state confidently that the shield is "rarely carried in war because it hinders rather than helps." (61) What is more, the average size of those shields still in use continued to decrease, a result of warriors adopting for their protection new forms of rigid body armor. (62) By the fifteenth century the armorers' craft had advanced to such an extent as to make the shield an unnecessary encumbrance, and it ceased to be carried by knights for purposes other than the joust. It was used only by infantrymen who carried small bucklers which used in conjunction with swords. (63) Though a shield can be a formidable defense, it is also an encumbrance, one that hinders the individual using it from freely employing his weapons, particularly when fighting on foot. Against an opponent with a shield and shorter weapon, the man wearing articulated plate armor and armed with a longsword enjoyed several significant advantages. His weapon had a greater reach. Not only could he deliver forceful, two‑handed blows, he could utilize highly effective "half‑sword" techniques. His plate armor and greater reach largely freed him from the danger of being struck by cutting blows. (64) He could close on his opponent without being sliced by draw cuts and his armor would protect him from forceful impacts by the shield. Meanwhile, the shield bearer could be placed at an added disadvantage by having his shield pressed up against him or having its rim grabbed by the other fighter's free hand. He might even be rushed and flung down in such a manner that he or at least his arm would be pinned by the shield meant to protect him. Large free‑standing shields (such as the pavis or stezchild) were still employed on the battlefield to protect front rank troops against assault by slings, arrows, and crossbow bolts. What is more, shields continued to be used effectively in siege warfare throughout the Middle Ages. But the traditional kite‑shaped shield worn on the arm was progressively abandoned. By the late fourteenth century, the development of full plate armor and the longsword combined with increasing use of polearms and more powerful missile weapons had greatly reduced its value in European warfare. The medieval and early modern handbooks reflect this changing reality. There are over a hundred surviving fencing texts dating from the late‑thirteenth to the early‑seventeenth centuries. Nowhere do they mention the battlefield use of shields, with one important exception‑the buckler. Fighting with Sword and Buckler The buckler is a small, highly maneuverable shield carried in the non‑sword hand. Although most often associated with fencing methods of the early 1500s and with common soldiers rather than knights, the combination of sword and buckler dates well back into the Middle Ages, at which time the two weapons were used by both knights and commoners. Early medieval pictorial sources, dating from c. 650 to c. I 100, show bucklers in use by Celtic, Frankish, and Byzantine horsemen while both the literature and artwork of the later Middle Ages frequently depict men‑at‑arms, mounted or on foot, carrying these convenient defensive weapons. The widespread popularity of the buckler in late medieval warfare can be traced largely to the fact that it was less cumbersome and more agile than a larger shield and easier either to carry about or wear on the hip. Nor was the use of bucklers limited to combat; they were also important in training and non‑lethal sword play. Fencing with sword and buckler was a popular pastime in northern Italy, Germany, and England. As British historical fencing researcherpractitioner Martin J. Austwick has pointed out: The earliest references to professional combat instructors or masters of defense as they were to become known all have one thing in common. They refer to schools of sword and buckler. Add to this the fact that the earliest known Fechtbuch (fight book) is dedicated solely to sword and buckler combat, then it becomes apparent that sword and buckler combat is arguably the oldest martial tradition within Western Martial Arts today. (65) Regular exercise with the sword and buckler, originally known as Eskimye de Bokyler, appears to have become common as early as the twelfth century. In training, the sword and buckler's value lay in learning to coordinate the two weapons, using them cooperatively both to attack and defend, cut and thrust. The warrior's timing and footwork were also improved. Medieval literature suggests that once developed, techniques of sword and buckler combat remained fairly consistent over time. Throughout Europe, the primary use of the buckler was by infantry. As early as the 1100s, light infantry, made up of commoners armed with bucklers and either a sword or falchion often lined up behind troops with pole‑weapons. As the Middle Ages wore on, this weapon system came increasingly into its own and by the time of the Hundred Years War, sword and buckler infantry were playing a significant role on the battlefield. What is more, the buckler was not limited to use with a sword or falchion; it could also be carried by a soldier wielding a bow or even one with a polearm since its size made it easy to wear by one's side. The versatility of the sword‑buckler combination recommended its use in combat situations. Although the buckler offered some protection against missile weapons, it was particularly valuable when facing hand held weapons such as polearms and axes. One the buckler's advantages in the crush of medieval combat lay in its flexibility. Whereas a larger shield worn on the arm could become a deadly encumbrance when hooked or pulled by various types of polearms and axes, the smaller, more nimble hand‑held buckler could be easily disengaged from attempts to entangle it or simply be dropped from the hand. Nor could the point of an opponent's weapon get stuck in the face of a metal buckler as it could in a large wooden shield (though at times, the ability to entangle an enemy's weapon might actually prove an advantage to the shield bearer.) Combined with a good shearing sword or tapering cut‑and‑thrust blade, the buckler could deflect attacks, strike blows of its own, and yet still allow the user's sword to cut around in any direction. (66) Conclusion The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the period of the Hundred Years War, witnessed enormous innovation in both weaponry and fighting tactics. Plate armor increasingly replaced maile. The short sword and full length shield gave way to longswords and bucklers. Infantry armed with pikes, halberds, and other deadly pole arms, as well as longbows, crossbows, and eventually firearms played an ever greater role on European battlefields. Prior to the fourteenth century, the mounted knight dominated hand‑to‑hand combat against anyone not similarly equipped and equally well‑trained. With a coat of maile, great helm, large shield, gauntlets, and armed with a fine sword or battleaxe, he normally enjoyed a decided advantage against any common soldier or even against several such opponents. During the Hundred Years War, however, the knight was forced by necessity to develop more effective martial skills in order to face a better armed, better armored, and better trained array of common infantry. In close‑quarter combat, increasing numbers of infantrymen equipped with quality weapons of their own, including swords, pole‑arms, crossbows, and longbows, posed a far more deadly threat than they had in the past. A mounted man in armor could no longer confidently rely either on the protective value of his armor or his ability to ride down his opponent with a lance. The late medieval warrior who attempted such a brash maneuver against a hedgehog of polearms would quickly find himself lying on the ground with men rushing forward to jab sharp metal spikes into his eyes. These new battlefield pressures occasioned a late medieval flowering of the martial arts. As plate armor provided men‑at‑arms greater protection, they required more complex fighting moves for defeating ‑ one another as well as confronting the vastly improved infantry of their day. It was a period of constant experimentation leading to developments that affected weapons, armor, and the techniques involved in using both. The diversity of plate armor worn during the period was considerable with no standardization in either the thickness or number pieces available. And the arsenal of weapons at the warriors disposal was truly profound. As a result, the art and science of defence (as Fiore dei Liberi called it in 1410) was a highly individualized one: each warrior had to make choices on which his life (and death) depended‑choices concerning which weapons to use in combat and how best to use them. It was to help make such choices that a new literature came into being and flourished. (67) The medieval battlefield was a frightening place to be. To survive its many dangers required skill, strength, and frequent practice in the martial arts‑despite which there always remained a large element of chance. It is no wonder that the late‑fourteenth‑century poet, Geoffroi de Paris, wrote, Enssi aviement li fait d'armes: on pier tune fois el l'autre fois gaagn`on‑‑"That's the way it is with fighting, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose."
Endnotes:
1 Jean Froissart, Chronicles of
England, France, and Spain and the Adjoining Countries from the Latter
Part of the Reign of Edward II to the Coronation of Henry IV],
trans. Thomas Johnes, 2 vols. (London, 1839) (Book II, ch. 9‑10),
1:533‑36. This is just one of the many sections of Thomas Johnes'
translation of Froissart into English that has been made easily
available on the web by Professor Steve Muhlberger of Nipissing
University's Department of History. Muhlberger's website, entitled
Tales from Froissart, is taken from the 1849 edition printed in
London. It appears at the following URL: 2 For a short study of some reasons for the increasing carnage, see Clifford J. Rogers, "The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years' War" in The Journal of Military History 57 (1993): 271‑88. Reprinted in The Military Revolution Debate: Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe, ed. Clifford J. Rogers (Boulder, Colo., 1995) 55‑94. 3 Sydney Anglo, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe (New Haven, Conn., 2000), 3. 4 The verses of Johannes Liechtenauer are collected in Grzegorz Zabinski's work in progress, The 14th century Fighting Art of Johannes Liechtenauer [hereafter: Zabinski, Liechtenauer], forthcoming from Chivalry Bookshelf (2004‑05). The principal manuscript belonging to the Preussische Königliche Staatsbibliothek is at present in the collection of the Jagiellonian Library in Kraków (ms. germ. quart. 2020). The difficulties of citing Liechtenauer derive from the nature of the source materials. Lichtenauer's teachings in verse set forth a systematic method of combat with medieval weaponry that was fully developed by the mid‑1300s. They were first compiled by the priest and master at arms, Hanko Döbringer, sometime around the year 1389. Subsequently, the verses were quoted or commented upon by a number of later masters, such as Sigmund Ringeck and Peter von Danzig, whose own works, both published and in manuscript form, served as the basis for still other treatises such as the "Goliath." The fact that no one work contains all of Lichtenauer's purported teachings necessitates reliance upon multiple sources. In this article, citations to the writings of Johannes Liechtenauer, Hankco Döbringer, and Peter von Danzig come from Zabinski's work in progress, unless attributed to the Codex Wallerstein. 5 The treatise of Fiore dei Liberi, dated to 1410, presents the author's system for unarmed combat as well as the use of a variety of knightly weapons. It is the premier Italian fencing work of the fifteenth century and survives in three known editions each displaying textual and iconographic differences: Fiore Furlan dei Liberi da Premariacco, Flos Duellatorum in arnis, sine arnis, equester, pedester, Getty Museum 83.MR.183; Fiore Furlan dei Liberi da Premariacco, Fior di Battaglia, Pierpont Morgan Library, M.383; and the Pissani‑Dossi manuscript, Flos Duellatoruin: Il Fiore di battaglia di maestro Fiore dei Liberi da Premariacco. The latter was edited by F. Novati and published at Bergamo, Italy in 1902. Material from this treatise can be found at www.thearma.org/Manuals/Liberi.htm. 6 Hanko Döbringer 1389 Fechtbuch [hereafter Döbringer, Fechtbuch], containing Lichtenauer's verses, is preserved in Codex Ms. 3227a, f. 15 of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg. In preparing this article, I have used a 2003 translation by Bartlomiej Walczak and Grzegorz Zabinski that I quote with their permission. References are to folio pages in the Nürnberg mss. 7 Sigmund Ringeck, Die Ritterlich Kunst des Langen Schwerts, Transcript by Martin Wierschin (Berlin, 1965); David Lindholm, Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Art of the Longsword (Boulder, Colorado, 2003), 18. 8 Hans Talhoffer's Fechtbuch aus dem Jahre 1467. An English translation can be found in Medieval Combat: a Fiftenth‑Centurv Illustrated Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat, ed. and trans, Mark Rector (Mechanicsburg, Pa., 2000). See also the recent English translation by Michael W. Rasmussen at URL: http://www.schielhau.org/tal.html. 9 Filippo Vadi, De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi (c.1482). Codice 1324 in the Vittorio Emmanuele collection of the Biblioteca Nazionale, Rome. 10 British Library, Ms. 3542 and Ms. 39564. While their cryptic wording makes it difficult to determine the relation of these English works to other writings of the period, in their techniques, they seem to reflect Germanic influences. 11 Ironically, some of those who taught such techniques would have been barred by their lower social status from actually participating in tournaments. 12 For an account of the challenges and difficulties faced when trying to reconstruct and practice these fighting skills see: "The Modern Study of Renaissance Martial Arts...History, Heritage, Exercise, Camaraderie, and Self‑Defense" at ARMA‑the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, www.thearma.org/study.htm. 13 For an outline of the systems of combat used in the Latin west during the period see: "Historical European Martial Arts" at ARMA, www.thearma.org/ HEMA.htm. 14 Zabinski, Liechtenauer, ff. Iv, 8, 19v. 15 Lindholm, Ringeck, 18. 16 Johannes Liechtenauer's Art of the Long Sword, accompanied by an anonymous commentary in the Goliath manuscript (MS 2020). The original manuscript is a fechtbuch that begins with a recital of Liechtenauer's verses, followed by the commentary and examples, not unlike what one finds in other fifteenth century fechtbücher. The English translation by Michael W. Rasmusson, based on Grzegorz Zabinsky's transcript, was updated in 2003. http://www.schielhau.org/von.danzig.html. trans. Mike Rasmussen, 2003. 17 The German manuscript, belonging to the Bibliotheca I Regia Berlinenistadt, is currently in the collection of Jagiellonian Library, Kraków Ms. 5878, Plate 30r. See: G. Zabinski's unpublished translation, 2003. 18 Codex Wallerstein‑A Medieval Fighting Book from the Fifteenth Century on the Longsword, Falchion, Dagger, and Wrestling, ed. Gregorz Zabinski and Bartlomiej Walczak (Boulder, Colo., 2002), 66 (plate 29). 19 George Silver, Paradoxes of Defense (London, 1599), 21 (chap. 13). 20 Edward Wagner, Cut and Thrust Weapons (London, 1967), 41. 21 Craig Turner and Tony Soper, Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay. (Carbondale, Ill., 1990), xvi‑xvii. 22 Robert E. Morsberger, Swordplay and the Elizabethan and Jacobean Stage (Salzburg, Austria, 1974), 7. 23 C.L. de Beaumont, Fencing: Ancient Art and Modern Sport (New York, 1960), 1. 24 Sydney Anglo, "How to Win at Tournaments: The Techniques of Chivalric Combat," Antiquaries Journal 68 (1988): 248. 25 Egerton Castle, Schools and Masters of Fence: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Centuiy (London, 1885), 5. 26 Ibid., 2. 27 Hergsell made this statement in his 1887 edition of the Fechtbuch aus Jahre 1467. 28 Taking his cue from Liechtenauer, Sigmund Ringeck later referred to Buffel in even more explicit terms‑as "the fools that usurp mastery with violence." See: Ringeck, Die Ritterlich Kiinst, 110. 29 Zabinski (citing von Danzig, f 7v), 154. 30 Ibid. (citing Döbringer, f. 22v), 133. 31 Döbringer, Fechtbuch, ff. 44r‑45v. 32 Silver, Paradoxes, 21 (chap. 13). 33 Codex Wallerstein, 69. 34 Vadi, De Arte, 5v. 35 This particular motivation for developing increased skill, while affecting knightly combatants, did not extend downward on the social ladder. Common fighting men did not share in the "fellowship in arms" that created brotherhood among the knightly classes. They neither profited from ransom to the same degree nor could they expect a similar noblesse oblige in their treatment if taken prisoner. What is more, the weapons wielded by common soldiers‑bows, crossbows, pikes, halberds, etc.‑were not as conducive to taking of prisoners as swords and daggers. 36 Hartmann von Aue, Iwein, trans. John Wesley Thomas (London, 1979), line 7000. The work is based on Chrétien De Troyes' twelfth‑century, Yvain, Or the Knight with the Lion. 37 Döbringer, Fechtbuch, f. 15. 38 Regimento para aprender a1gunas cousas das Armas, BITAGAP Manid 3154 in the Biblioteca Municipal of Santarém, 31‑7‑10, 1 132v cited in Anglo, Martial Arts, 257. 39 Gutierre Diaz de Gamez, The Unconquered Knight‑A Chronicle of the Deeds of Don Pero Nino, Count of Bue1na, trans. Joan Evans (London, 1928), 4‑5. This legend of a primordial selection‑process determining the identity of the earliest knights had appeared in Iberian writings several centuries before Pero Niño's chronicle. See: David Cohen, "Secular Pragmatism and Thinking about War in some Court Writings of Pere III el Cerimonios," in Donald J. Kagay and L.J. Andrew Villalon, Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean (Leiden, 2003), 46‑47. 40 The study and classification of swords has been given its own name, spathologv. " 41 Ewart Oakeshott, Sword in Hand‑A Brief Survey of the Knightly Sword (Minneapolis 2001), 95. 42 Döbringer, Fechtbuch, f. 34v. 43 Zabinski (citing von Danzig), 303. 44 See the comprehensive sample of fighting manuals (thirteenth to seventeenth centuries) online at ARMA, www.thearma,org/manuals.htm. 45 Codex Wallerstein, 34. 46 One is reminded of the closing scene from a recent film version of Rob Roy starring Liam Neeson, where the beleaguered hero defeats and dismembers a far more skilled fencer by grabbing his opponent's sword blade at a critical moment.
47 Tales from Froissart (book 11,
chap. 10) ed. Steve Muhlberger at URL: 48 Although the term "chain mail" is not infrequently used, it is a redundant Victorian misnomer. The preferred term is simply "maile." 49 Tales ftom Froissart (Book Il, Chapter 115), http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/prepare.htm. 50 For an extended summary of misconceptions concerning the actual weigh of medieval swords, see: "What Did Historical Swords Weigh?" at ARMA, www. thearma.org/essays/weights.htm. 51 Eleanor Baldwin Cass, The Book of Fencing (Boston, 1930), 29‑30. 52 Charles Ffoulkes and E.C. Hopkinson, Sword, Lance, & Bayonet: A record of the Arms of the British, Army and Navy (Cambridge, 1938), 18. For similar views, see also: Beaumont, Fencing, 143. 53 Ewart Oakeshott, Medieval Swords Part II, in "The Gun Report" (London, 1982), 18. 54 The Age of Chivariy (New York, 1969), 213. 55 Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Callings, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago, 1987), 108. 56 Richard Barber, The Knight and Chivalry (New York, 1974), 232. 57 A video of modern researchers performing such moves filmed at the Royal Armories in Leeds is available at www.theARMA.org. 58 Kelly DeVries, Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1996), 191. 59 Andrew Ayton, "Knights, Esquires, and Military Service: The Evidence of the Armorial Cases before the Court of Chivalry," in The Medieval Military Revolution. State, Society, and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modem Europe, ed. Andrew Ayton and J.L. Price (London, 1995), 24‑25. 60 For more information on the English move into Italy, see William Caferro's article in this volume, entitled "'The Fox and the Lion”: The White Company and the Hundred Years War in Italy." 61 In 1583, the Italian military writer, Cesare d'Evoli, declared his dislike for wooden shields because spear tips would stick in them. In their place, he advocated the use of round steel shields (rotella). Anglo, Martial Arts, 205, 220. 62 Nicolle, Arms and Armor, 134. Edge, Arms, 12 1. 64 An element of European plate armor that has gone unappreciated is the fact that it was often designed to prohibit an opponent from easily grappling with the wearer by grabling his armor at the elbow, wrist, or shoulder. 65 This quotation appears on the website of what was formerly known as the Albion Academy of Arms, at URL http://albionacademyofarmes.org/essayl.htm. The Academy has since divided into two organizations: the Company for Historical Combat and the Academie Glorianna. 66 For an extensive collection of images (twelfth to sixteenth centuries) depicting knights and men‑at‑arms wielding sword and buckler, see: "The Sword and Buckler Tradition", at ARMA, www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm. The accumulated material supports the argument that for several centuries the sword and buckler was a common training weapon among all classes of fighting men, as well as a knightly weapon for both battlefield and judicial combat. 67 For a concise overview of the emerging field of historical fencing studies as it relates to research in Renaissance martial arts literature, see: "An Introduction to Renaissance Martial Arts Literature" at ARMA, www.thearma.org/ARMAlit.htm.
|