The Armour Archive

I missed that you were looking for the info on that image here it is from the British Library:

http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.a ... earchnum=6

Battle of the Spurs

The Battle of Courtrai (Battle of the Spurs) between the French and the Flemings in 1302. Text beginning withg decorated initial 'A'

Image taken from Chroniques de France ou de St. Denis.

Originally published/produced in End of 14th century.
Shelfmark/Page: Royal 20 C. VII, f.34
Language: French

James

I hate you.

I search the British Library site for an hour and couldn't pull up that image. Your net-fu is strong!

Edit: Ah I see.. I needed spaces between the call numbers.

Thanks!

I have the link to the St. Denis manuscript bookmarked since we talk about it so much here.

i have that exact image


it is in an ospery book


i have bout 40 of em so i'd have to look through about half again.

I think it was in French armies of the HYW or Poitiers 1356 or English Medieval Knight 1300-1400 or something like that.

Hmm.

It seems that the image is concerning the Battle of the Golden Spurs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

Which was a peasant uprising. It is in fact the first battle in history where an army of footmen defeated knights.

It appears from the summaries I have read that initially French infantry was sent in against the Flemish peasant army, and nearly won, but they were recalled at the last minute to let the French Knights ride in and seize the glory of victory. But they were lost in the mud and river and the battle was won instead by the Flemish.

So I am not sure if the picture in question shows authentic combat of the actual battle or what.

Man, you'd think that the french would of wised up quicker concerning cav charges around muddy, mucky terrain.....they had their asses handed to them more then a few times because of bad terrain....I'm sure it happened to other countries to, it just seems the french had it happen to them more.

kelly powell wrote:Man, you'd think that the french would of wised up quicker concerning cav charges around muddy, mucky terrain.....they had their asses handed to them more then a few times because of bad terrain....I'm sure it happened to other countries to, it just seems the french had it happen to them more.

You would think that natural selection would have worked and the weak ones who thought fighting on bad turf would have been weeded out.

It must be a dominant trait in French to seek out the bad ground to fight on

DA

Steve -SoFC- wrote:Hmm.

It seems that the image is concerning the Battle of the Golden Spurs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

Which was a peasant uprising. It is in fact the first battle in history where an army of footmen defeated knights.

It appears from the summaries I have read that initially French infantry was sent in against the Flemish peasant army, and nearly won, but they were recalled at the last minute to let the French Knights ride in and seize the glory of victory. But they were lost in the mud and river and the battle was won instead by the Flemish.

So I am not sure if the picture in question shows authentic combat of the actual battle or what.

Chronicle images rarely do well at repsenting the actual battle. Look at at all the images in Froissart that clearly do not properly represent the tactics of the battle represented. But images like that one are not uncommon. There is NO DOUBT that men at arms in the late 14th century often fought on foot in knightly harness with pole weapons.

Strongbow wrote:Chronicle images rarely do well at repsenting the actual battle.

Exactly why I posted the info on deeds of arms with poleaxes/axes; manuscripts too often show only fully armored men.

DarkApprentice wrote:

kelly powell wrote:Man, you'd think that the french would of wised up quicker concerning cav charges around muddy, mucky terrain.....they had their asses handed to them more then a few times because of bad terrain....I'm sure it happened to other countries to, it just seems the french had it happen to them more.

You would think that natural selection would have worked and the weak ones who thought fighting on bad turf would have been weeded out.

It must be a dominant trait in French to seek out the bad ground to fight on

DA

It's a bit of a mystery why this happened to the French so much, but Kelly De Vries in his book "Infantry Warfare in the 14th Century" and Clifford Rogers (who we're very lucky to see posting here occasionally) in his book War Sharp and Cruel both explore the phenomenon from interesting perspectives. The Scots used terrain to great effect against the English, who in turn used the lessons they learned against the Scots and the French. The battle analysis we get in English is skewed by an Anglocentric perspective we mostly talk about Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. The truth is the French won a lot of battles, and most of the individual formal conflicts they had with the English, which gave them an inordinate confidence in their marshal prowess. They also lost a lot of their experienced commanders in the big military disasters in part because the Order of the Star took an oath not to flee the battlefield.
The French didn't have a monopoly on not learning from their mistakes. We're reliving a lot of our issues from Vietnam right now due to charging in and relying on our superior martial prowess.

Book links:
http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Warfare- ... 526&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/War-Cruel-Sharp-S ... 99&sr=8-15

I find this passage interesting:

First, to enter the lists on foot, each armed as seems best to them, having their dagger and sword upon their body as they wish, and having a pollaxe of such length as I shall give. And this shall be the number of blows for all the different weapons and arms: ten strokes with the pollaxe, without repairs (sans reprendre); and when these ten strokes shall have been performed, and the judge shall say, ‘Ho!' we will give ten strokes with the sword without repairs, or parting from each other, or changing our harness. When the judge shall say, 'Ho!' we will take to our daggers in hand , and give ten strokes with them. Should either one lose or drop his weapon, the other will be able to do as he pleases with the one he holds until the judge shall say, 'Ho!' When the combat on foot shall be finished, we will mount our horses, each arming his body as he shall please, but with two similar chapeaux de fer, which I will provide, and my companion shall have the choice: each shall have what sort of gorget he pleases. I will also provide two saddles, for the choice of my companion.

It seems to me that in the first sentence when he says, "each armed as seems best to them", he is speaking about armour, since he goes on to specify the arms that they may use.

If this is so, it appears that men may arm(our) themselves as they see fit for the foot combat and the mounted combat, which seems to indicate that they might be armoured differently between the foot and horse combat.

Is there anything definitive on the kind of armour worn in 14th century foot combat?

There seems to be a lot of this sort of repetitiveness in the texts. I don't know whether it means that there should be a difference in harness between the foot combat and the horse combat, or whether the choice to arm one's self differently is extended as a matter of courtesy, or what. Maybe this is a literary convention to add texture and pacing to the account.

There were cases of man at arms choosing to arm themselves--and my arm I mean armor--in ways that we would consider foolish, or in ways that take advantage of the rules of the contest. I am without the texts, so I am at a disadvantage, but cases of noblemen arming their legs with fabrics with gilt nails, or in Tirant lo Blanc (admittedly a work of fiction), a man at arms with fake leg armor since the combat was at the barriers and the legs were not a likely target (this was roundly scorned).

John
Jehan de Pelham, ecuyer and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

Steve -SoFC- wrote:
If this is so, it appears that men may arm(our) themselves as they see fit for the foot combat and the mounted combat, which seems to indicate that they might be armoured differently between the foot and horse combat.

I think that's drawing a big conclusion. First, as Jehan points out, I think it's a stylistic quirk of the period to repeat like that. Second, these are apparently rules for a formal deed, and as such, would be very specific about what is allowed and not allowed.

I'm not sure, but I think I recall in Muhlberger's book about Deeds of Arms, he remarks that sometimes combatants would forego armour on the legs during a joust, and some such. But this would be deleting armour, rather than specialized armour. Late in the 14th century, the Great helm seems to have become specialized tournament armour.

Is there anything definitive on the kind of armour worn in 14th century foot combat?

pretty much what you see in effigies I would think. The English USUALLY fought on foot.

There is some suggestion that Hawkwood's company in Italy wore a reduced set of armour... presumably due to higher temperatures there, or the type of fighting they did.

I think that's drawing a big conclusion. First, as Jehan points out, I think it's a stylistic quirk of the period to repeat like that. Second, these are apparently rules for a formal deed, and as such, would be very specific about what is allowed and not allowed.

But that's not what he says. He says they may arm themselves as they please or as seems best to them. He is not any more specific about the armour than that.

And it does seem that when he says they may "arm" themselves he is speaking of armour, as he later says, "And each shall arm his head and body as he pleases."

Bear in mind I am now playing devil's advocate. Personally I suspect that 14th century knightly foot armour was very similar to that worn on a horse. In fact it seems that leg armour may have been omitted while jousting as we see from the last passage I quote above.

Steve

Agreed. I'll add this as regards the culture in operation, as I think I understand it:

Have you ever dealt with strong-willed people? Sometimes, to throw a veneer over the situation, you give them permission to do what they will whether you say so or not, just to make nice.

That's the concept that I think was in operation here. You have two men at arms. They're going to do as each thinks best. They didn't make rules, they just let what people did and perceived determine the renown of the participants. So, instead of a rule-set saying "You must do such and so," it was very much an affair where each man at arms could determine his own risks, both in terms of his hide, and in terms of his honor.

And as far as expectations go, I bet it was very much the case where the expectations were implicit rather than explicit, in order to obfuscate the ins and outs of the culture of deeds. Why? So that only the people who should be part of the life of arms should even know about how to go about it. And also so that bumpkins and fools trying to play at noble sport at arms could be more easily detected.

John
Jehan de Pelham, ecuyer and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

What? people playing fast and loose with the rules of a game? Gasp! Myabe we are more historically correct then some people think

Let's remember there were choices in armor in that era. Open face, visorded, or great helm; CoP, brigandine, maille, a solid breastplate, or a combo of such. It maybe like the later 1400 people preferred a brigandine and visored helm on foot and a great helm and solid breastplate on horse with a lance.

Then there is cuir bouilli.

Let's remember there were choices in armor in that era. Open face, visorded, or great helm; CoP, brigandine, maille, a solid breastplate, or a combo of such. It maybe like the later 1400 people preferred a brigandine and visored helm on foot and a great helm and solid breastplate on horse with a lance.

Then there is cuir bouilli.

Yes, and that is the heart of the discussion from my friend's perspective - what armour, if any, was considered "horseman's" armour as opposed to armour for foot combat.

My friend was contending that the armour worn by the folks in the Deed of Arms was "horseman's armour". If the above account means anything, it would appear that having leg armour would make you more likely to be armoured for being on foot than being on horse.

Other than the use of the great helm later in the century there seens to be no distinction in cav and foot armour as far as consrtruction.

You bud be wrong.

You have referces to pepole ditching bits at verious deeds due to their decision that they did not need it. Thats not the sdame thing.

For foot combat, I would choose an open faced helm. For mounted with lances I would use a visored helm.
That's my difference, cause I was there! muahahahahahahahahahaha!

Steve -SoFC- wrote: ten strokes with the pollaxe, without repairs (sans reprendre)...

ten strokes with the sword without repairs...


we will mount our horses, each arming his body as he shall please

Maybe this just means that they are allowed to repair/remove/replace damaged armour between foot and mounted combat.
It appears that they weren't allowed to do so during the foot combat.

Tom

Is reprendre "repair" or is it "rest."

Murdock, good point on the great helm. That could be a peice of horseman's jousting armor.

John
Jehan de Pelham, ecuyer and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

http://french.about.com/library/verb/bl_reprendre.htm

Seems to be rest.

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

Let's remember there were choices in armor in that era. Open face, visorded, or great helm; CoP, brigandine, maille, a solid breastplate, or a combo of such. It maybe like the later 1400 people preferred a brigandine and visored helm on foot and a great helm and solid breastplate on horse with a lance.

Then there is cuir bouilli.

Yes, and that is the heart of the discussion from my friend's perspective - what armour, if any, was considered "horseman's" armour as opposed to armour for foot combat.

My friend was contending that the armour worn by the folks in the Deed of Arms was "horseman's armour". If the above account means anything, it would appear that having leg armour would make you more likely to be armoured for being on foot than being on horse.

I think that is backward. Most infantrymen wore no leg armour, going by documentation.

More likely, if in the era of full plate harness, or plate and mail harness of various sorts, if you were able to afford a full harness in combat, you would likely wear leg armour on foot or on horseback. Unlike an infantryman, you would ride to the battlefield, then dismount to fight - mounted archers ditto, you sometimes see them in full leg harness - but if you were marching onto a battlefield, the lag harness was more of an incumberance.

Leg harness implies a fat purse, a horse, and servants.

Strongbow wrote:[
I think that's drawing a big conclusion. First, as Jehan points out, I think it's a stylistic quirk of the period to repeat like that. Second, these are apparently rules for a formal deed, and as such, would be very specific about what is allowed and not allowed.

Michael, watch out for that great big trap at your feet. It's been my experience when reading translations of historic texts (as I , unfortunately, don't read *any* of the period languages beyond, say Middle English) describing how to do various things - recipies for cooking, methods for preparing materials for various arts, fechtbuchs, medieval writers are amazingly quirky about what specifics are mentioned and what great gaping holes are left. It's as though the concept of the "step-by-step" instruction was unknown to them.

The trap I refer to is that of placing a modern expectation - this is a formal deed, so the framework must be rigid - upon a medieval author who may have had no such view. Perhaps what makes it a formal deed to the author is that the date, time and place were set in advance... I don't know.