Military Training in the Middle Ages

[Tom Knighton]

In another thread, the subject of Historical Western Martial Arts came up, as it sometimes does. Chef mentioned that folks who train with these styles using period clothing and footwear look exactly like the swordsmen in the fighting manuals. Also, there has been plenty to show that these methods work, and work pretty damn well. All that has lead me to this question:

How well versed was the rank and file medieval soldier in the usage of his weapons?

I know many of the fighting manuals cover more than just the sword and buckler. Most seem to over a variety of weapons. Further, from my somewhat limited knowledge, the Masters who wrote these were not noble knights, but commoners who were well trained (though I accept that I could be WAAAAY off on this one). I have no doubt that the wealthy warrior could afford for this training, and I HIGHLY doubt that the commoner pressed into service due to feudal obligations (pre professional military is what I'm thinking of here, though any peasant levy would probably be the same) would have had any. However, what about the professional soldier? Was there some equivelant to a "boot camp", for lack of a better term, where they would be trained in Western Martial Arts?

Just my curiousity kicking in here.

Bran

[chef de chambre]

In another thread, the subject of Historical Western Martial Arts came up, as it sometimes does. Chef mentioned that folks who train with these styles using period clothing and footwear look exactly like the swordsmen in the fighting manuals. Also, there has been plenty to show that these methods work, and work pretty damn well. All that has lead me to this question:

How well versed was the rank and file medieval soldier in the usage of his weapons?

I know many of the fighting manuals cover more than just the sword and buckler. Most seem to over a variety of weapons. Further, from my somewhat limited knowledge, the Masters who wrote these were not noble knights, but commoners who were well trained (though I accept that I could be WAAAAY off on this one). I have no doubt that the wealthy warrior could afford for this training, and I HIGHLY doubt that the commoner pressed into service due to feudal obligations (pre professional military is what I'm thinking of here, though any peasant levy would probably be the same) would have had any. However, what about the professional soldier? Was there some equivelant to a "boot camp", for lack of a better term, where they would be trained in Western Martial Arts?

Just my curiousity kicking in here.

Bran

Hi Bran,

It all depends on when and where. We know that crossbowmen in Flanders and Italy trained with their weapons with regularity from the High middle ages onward. We know in Italy during this time, the civic militias would undergo training by dividing into teams with blunt weapons. We also know that practise with the bow is legally required throughout England in the 14th & 15th centuries (but from the evidence of the repeated laws enacted, it would seem the actuality of training vs. the ideal had a substantial gulf).

We know in England from evidence of court cases from Oxford and other locals, that trainers existed in the art of fighting with sword or falchion and buckler on foot, and they catered to students and apprentices of the town - they were often fined or otherwise punished for contributing to civil unrest - at times there were fewer laws against the practise, and at times more laws were enacted supressing same. This dates from the 12th century onward (I.33 is evidence of this happening in Suth German towns @ the year 1300, with these types of weapons. We know the Swiss Confederation required regular drill with weapons by all able bodied men, we know that the Burgundian army drilled during the reign of Charles the Bold - we know these things as a fact.

What we don't know about any of these forms of drills or training is precisely what they consisted of - I.33 is the earliest manual to date, and it deals with weapons of the townsman. This is the only glimpse we have of the 3rd estate and how they might have been taught to fight, if they were fortunate enough.

Most Late Medieval fechtbuchs are actually geared toward the aristocracy, gentry, and wealthy men - they teach the art (for the most part), of fighting with the weapons of the class, or in specialised judicial combats (Fiori is an exception, that shows everything from wrestling and using improvised weapons up to combat on horseback - but we know he would only teach worthy men (gentlemen), and wouldn't teach just anybody). Fiori was a trainer to the Dukes D'Este - not to middle class people. In the 16th century, one finds manuals devoted to the middle classes covering weapons and techniques found formerly in the early manuals written for and dedicated to noble patrons.

So, the long and the short of it is we don't precisely know how soldiers were trained, with very few exceptions, and in no real case (except I.33) do we have any details of how middle class people trained for combat prior to the mid 16th century.

[Tom Knighton]

Thanks Chef, I knew you would probably have the answer

So then, a group of re-enactors portraying a 15th Century mercenary unit would do what then? Would they use I.33, even though it predates them by almost 200 years, or would they use a later manual for thier training and just accept that it's as close as they can get?

This isn't meant as a slam or anything, merely a curiousity of mine. I know that some groups have to make educated guesses at some things for whatever reason, and just wondered how groups like Wolf Argent dealt with that.

Thanks for the answer also.

Bran

[jester]

The sword and buckler material displays a lot of continuity. You can see elements that look like they are lifted exactly from I.33 in later fectbucher and illustrations.

For a 15th Century group I would recommend basing your sword and buckler on Talhoffer and Lignitzer. Lignitzer material can be found in an article at the ARMA website (or, if the illustrations have disappeared I can try to get permission to republish from Keith Myers of ARMA DC). Talhoffer material can be found at DieSchlactschule (on yahoo groups, they're in Connecticut or thereabouts and the group is run by Hugh Knight, aka Count Sir Rhys ap Harlech who used to post on the ArmourArchive). The actual material in Talhoffer's manual of 1467 (black and white illustrations, not color) is pretty easy to interpret and can be found in translation at the AEMMA website.

Sword and buckler appears to be primarily used by the lower classes. However, there is evidence that it was also a training tool for the upper classes.

It appears that actual schools of combat existed. I remember a quote from a surpsingly early date (ca. 1250AD) that essentially banned these schools in London. I'll have to look through my notes. Details are non-existent (so far as I know) for anything earlier than 1400. After 1400 you can find examples of weapons masters employed by patrons (such as Fiore) and self-employed teachers. It seems to often be the case that instructors had a day job and taught weapons on their off time (this overly broad statement is subject to much variation).

It seems that a lot of learning took place in a very informal setting (much like an SCA fighter practice). You showed up with some gear and worked with your buds. If your buds happened to be combat veterans and you intended to use this skill in combat, I imagine that added a new dimesion to things. We know that playing at sword and buckler was a popular pastime, to the point that travelling performers sometimes included combat players in their number.

You'll notice lots of qualifiers in the preceding paragraphs. In a lot of cases the answer is: we don't know but we think....

[Ernst]

The Norwegian 'King's Mirror' text of circa 1250 reccommends for recreation of those who are King's men practicing horsemanship in full armor, or where horses can't be used, armored sword and buckler training. It implores, "If you feel that it is important to be well trained in these activities, go through th exercise twice a day, if it is convenient; but let no day pass, except holidays, without practicing this drill at least once; for it is counted proper for all kingsmen to master this art and, moreover, it must be mastered if it is to be of service."

I rather supect that a city merchant would have less call for practicing with his arms, but city life required men to act as police and militia on occasion, so quarterly or monthly drills would be more the norm unless times were tense. Some recreation, such as hunting and riding doubtless helped maintain one's skills. Even a peasant swinging a scythe for hours a day in harvest season gained some skill wih poleams. There seems to have been a fear and respect when the butchers guilds were mobilized.

[Jehan de Pelham]

Indeed! For these men knew the hacking of flesch as a daily practice!

Jehan de Pelham squire of Sir Vitus