_Beauty of the chivalric Equipment ... The Lance ... The Pennon ...
The Axe, Maule, and Martel ... The Sword ... Fondness of the Knight
for it ... Swords in Romances ... The Shield ... Various sorts of Mail
... Mail ... Mail and Plate ... Plate Harness ... The Scarf ...
Surcoats ... Armorial Bearings ... Surcoats of the Military Orders ...
The Dagger of Mercy ... Story of its Use ... Value of Enquiries into
ancient Armour ... A precise Knowledge unattainable ... Its general
Features interesting ... The broad Lines of the Subject ... Excellence
of Italian Armour ... Armour of the Squire, &c. ... Allegories made on
Armour ... The Horse of the Knight._
The fierce equipage of war deserves a fuller consideration than was given
to it in the last chapter. The horse whereon the knight dashed to the
perilous encounter should be described, the weapons by which he
established the honour of his fame and the nobleness of his mistress's
beauty deserve something more than a general notice. Never was military
costume more splendid and graceful than in the days which are emphatically
called "the days of the shield and the lance." What can modern warfare
present in comparison with the bright and glittering scene of a goodly
company of gentle knights pricking on the plain with nodding plumes,
emblazoned shields, silken pennons streaming in the wind, and the scarf,
that beautiful token of lady-love, crossing the strong and polished steel
cuirass.
[Sidenote: The lance.]
The lance was the chief offensive weapon of the knight: its staff was
commonly formed from the ash-tree.
[Sidenote: The pennon.]
Its length was fitted to the vigour and address of him who bore it, and
its iron and sharpened head was fashioned agreeably to his taste.[85] To
the top of the wooden part of the lance was generally fixed an ensign, or
piece of silk, linen, or stuff. On this ensign was marked the cross, if
the expedition of the soldier had for its object the Holy Land, or it bore
some part of his heraldry; and in the latter case, when the lance was
fixed in the ground near the entrance of the owner's tent, it served to
designate the bearer. Originally this ensign was called a gonfanon, the
combination of two Teutonic words, signifying war and a standard.
Subsequently, when the ensign was formed of rich stuffs and silks, it was
called a pennon, from the Latin word pannus.[86] The pennon cannot be
described from its exact breadth, for that quality of it varied with the
different fancies of knights, and it had sometimes one, but more often two
indentations at the end.
When the pennon was cut square on occasion of a simple knight becoming a
knight banneret it received the title of a banner, the ancient German word
for the standard of a leader, or prince.[87]
[Sidenote: The axe.]
[Sidenote: The maule and martel.]
To transfix his foe with a lance was the ordinary endeavour of a knight;
but some cavaliers of peculiar hardihood preferred to come to the closest
quarters, where the lance could not be used. The battle-axe, which they
therefore often wielded, needs no particular description. But the most
favourite weapons were certain ponderous steel or iron hammers, carrying
death either by the weight of their fall or the sharpness of the edge.
They were called the martel and the maule, words applied indifferently in
old times; for writers of days of chivalry cared little about extreme
accuracy of diction, not foreseeing the fierce disputes which their want
of minuteness in description would give rise to. This was the weapon which
ecclesiastics used when they buckled harness over rochet and hood, and
holy ardour impelled them into the field; for the canons of the church
forbad them from wielding swords, and they always obeyed the letter of the
law. Some cavaliers, in addition to their other weapons, carried the
mallet, or maule, hanging it at their saddle bow, till the happy moment
for 'breaking open skulls' arrived. When it was used alone, this
description of offensive armour was rather Gothic than chivalric; yet the
rudeness of earlier ages had its admirers in all times of chivalry, the
affected love of simplicity not being peculiar to the present day. A lance
could not execute half the sanguinary purposes of Richard Coeur de Lion,
and it was with a battle-axe[88], as often as with a sword, that he
dashed into the ranks of the Saracens. Bertrand du Guesclin had a
partiality for a martel, and so late as the year 1481 the battle-axe was
used.
Among the hosts of the Duke of Burgundy was a knight named Sir John
Vilain. He was a nobleman from Flanders, very tall, and of great bodily
strength: he was mounted on a good horse, and held a battle-axe in both
hands. He pressed his way into the thickest part of the battle, and,
throwing his bridle on the neck of his steed, he gave such mighty blows on
all sides with his battle-axe that whoever was struck was instantly
unhorsed, and wounded past recovery.[89] Generally speaking, however, the
polite and courteous knights of chivalry thought it an ungentle practice
to use a weapon which was associated with ideas of trade; and the
romance-writers, who reflect the style of thinking of their times,
commonly give the lance to the knight, and the axe or mallet to some rude
and ferocious giant.[90]
[Sidenote: The sword.]
[Sidenote: Fondness of the knight for it.]
The usual weapon for the press and mêlée was the sword, and there were a
great many interesting associations attached to it. The knight threw round
it all his affections. In that weapon he particularly trusted. It was his
_good_ sword, and with still more confidence and kindness he called it his
_own good_ sword. He gave it a name, and engraved on it some moral
sentence, or a word referring to a great event of his life. Not indeed
that these sentences were confined to the sword; they were sometimes
engraven on the frontlet of the helmet, or even on the spurs[91], but the
hilt or blade of the sword were their usual and proper places. The sword
rather than the lance was the weapon which represented the chivalry of a
family, and descended as the heir loom of its knighthood. When no one
inherited his name, there was as much generous contention among his
friends to possess his good sword, as in the days of Greece poetry has
ascribed to the warriors who wished for the armour of Achilles.[92] The
sword was the weapon which connected the religious and military parts of
the chivalrique character. The knight swore by his sword, for its cross
hilt was emblematical of his Saviour's cross.
David in his daies dubbed knights,
And did hem _swere on her sword_ to serve truth ever.
P. PLOUGHMAN.
The word Jesus was sometimes engraven on the hilt to remind the wearer of
his religious duties. The sword was his only crucifix, when mass was said
in the awful pause between the forming of the military array and the
laying of lances in their rests. It was moreover his consolation in the
moment of death. When that doughty knight of Spain, Don Rodrigo Frojaz was
lying upon his shield, with his helmet for a pillow, he kissed the cross
of his sword in remembrance of that on which the incarnate son of God had
died for him, and in that act of devotion rendered up his soul into the
hands of his Creator.[93]
The handle of the sword was also remarkable for another matter. The
knight, in order not to lose the advantage of having his seal by him,
caused it to be cut in the head of his sword, and thus by impressing his
seal upon any wax attached to a legal document, he exhibited his
determination to maintain his obligation by the three-fold figure of his
seal, the upholden naked sword, and the cross.[94]
The sword of the knight was held in such high estimation, that the name of
its maker was thought worthy of record. Thus when Geoffery of Plantagenet
received the honor of knighthood, a sword was brought out of the royal
treasury, the work of Galan, the best of all sword smiths.[95] Spain was
always famous for the temper and brilliancy of its swords. Martial speaks
in several places of the Spanish swords which, when hot from the forge,
were plunged in the river Salo near Bilbilis in Celtiberia. The armourers
at Saragossa were as renowned in days of chivalry as those of Toledo in
rather later times, for it was not only the sword of Toledo that became a
proverbial phrase for the perfection of the art. Sometimes the armourers
had establishments in both towns. The excellence, however, of the swords
of Julian del Rey, who lived both at Saragossa and Toledo, is referred to
by the keeper of the lions in Don Quixote. The weapons of this artist had
their peculiar marks. El perillo, a little dog; el morillo, a Moor's head,
and la loba, a wolf.[96]
But perhaps it may be thought I am passing the bounds of my subject. To
return then to earlier days. The girdle round the waist, or the bauldrick
descending from the shoulder across the body was simple tanned leather
only, or sometimes its splendour rivalled that of prince Arthur in the
Fairy Queen.
Athwart his breast a bauldrick brave he ware
That shind like twinkling stars, with stones most precious rare;
* * * * *
And in the midst thereof, one precious stone
Of wond'rous worth, and eke of wondrous mights,
Shapt like a lady's head, exceeding shone,
Like Hesperus among the lesser lights,
And strove for to amaze the weaker sights:
Thereby his mortal blade full comely hung
In ivory sheath, ycarv'd with curious slights,
Whose hilt was burnish'd gold, and handle strong
Of mother perle, and buckled with a golden tong.
Book 1. c. 7. st. 29, 30.
[Sidenote: Swords in romances.]
Many of the historical circumstances just now related regarding the sword
of the knight are pleasingly exaggerated in the beautiful extravagancies
of romantic fabling. The most famous sword in the imagination of our
ancestors was that of king Arthur; it was called Escalibert (corrupted
into Caliburn). The romance of Merlin thus explains the name. Escalibert
est un nom Ebricu qui vault autant à dire en Français, comme tres cher fer
et acier, et aussi dissoyent il vrai. The history of this sword enters
largely into the romances of Arthur, and the knights of the round table,
and the subject was fondly cherished by those who detailed the exploits of
other heroes. The fame of Caliburn was remembered when Richard the first
went to the East. The romances affirm that he wore the terrible and trusty
sword of Arthur. But, instead of mowing down ranks of Saracens with it, he
presented it to Tancred, king of Sicily.
And Richard at that time gaf him a faire juelle.
The good sword Caliburne, which Arthur luffed so well.[97]
The romancers followed the practices of the northern scalds[98], of naming
the swords of knights: that of Sir Bevis of Hampton was called Morglay;
and that of the Emperor Charlemagne himself Fusberta joyosa.[99] The poets
were also as faithful delineators of manners as their predecessors the
romance writers had been, and therefore we find in Ariosto that the sword
of the courteous Rogero was called Balisarda, and that of Orlando,
Durindana.
In the romance of Sir Otuel, the address of the same Orlando to his sword
is perfectly in the spirit of chivalry.
Then he began to make his moan
And fast looked thereupon,
As he held it in his hond.
"O sword of great might,
Better bare never no knight,
To win with no lond!
Thou hasty--be in many batayle,
That never Sarrazin, sans fayle
Ne might thy stroke withstond.
Go! let never no paynim
Into battle bear him,
After the death of Roland!
O sword of great powere,
In this world n'is nought thy peer,
Of no metal y--wrought;
_All Spain and Galice_,
Through grace of God and thee y--wis,
To Christendom ben brought.
Thou art good withouten blame;
In thee is graven the holy name
That all things made of nought."[100]
Regarding inscriptions on swords mentioned in the concluding lines, there
is a very interesting passage in the romance of Giron the courteous. On
one occasion where the chaste virtue of that gentle knight and noble
companion of Arthur was in danger, his spear, which he had rested against
a tree, fell upon his sword, and impelled it into a fountain. Giron
immediately left the lady with whom he was conversing, and ran to the
water. He snatched the weapon from the fountain, and, throwing away the
scabbard, began to wipe the blade. Then his eyes lighted on the words
that were written on the sword, and these were the words that were thus
written:--Loyaulte passe tout, et faulsete si honneit tout, et deceit tous
hommes dedans quals elle se herberge. This sentence acted with talismanic
power upon the heart of that noble knight Giron the courteous, and so his
virtue was saved.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: The shield.]
[Sidenote: Impresses.]
Leaving those pictures of manners which the old romances have painted, I
come to the defensive harness of the knight, a subject which has many
claims to attention. The shield was held in equal esteem in chivalric as
in classic times; for
"To lose the badge that should his deeds display,"
was considered the greatest shame and foulest scorn that could happen to a
knight. The shape of the shield was oblong or triangular, wide at the top
for the protection of the body, and tapering to the bottom.[101] Other
shapes were given to it agreeably to the fancy of the knight, and it was
plain or adorned with emblazonry of arms and other ornaments of gold and
silver, according to his estate, and the simplicity or comparative
refinement of his age. Some knights, as gentle as brave, adorned their
shields with a portrait of their lady-love[102], or stamped on them
impresses quaint, with a device emblematical of their passion. Knights
formed of sterner stuff retained their heraldic insignia, and their
mottoes breathed war and homicide; but gallant cavaliers shewed the
gentleness of their minds, and their impressed sentences were sometimes
plain of meaning, but oftener dark to all, except the knight himself, and
the damsel whose playful wit had invented them. We can readily imagine
that those amorous devices and impresses were not so frequently used in
the battle field as in the tournament, and that they were sometimes worn
together with gentilitial distinctions.
[Sidenote: Various sorts of mail.]
The casing of the body is a very curious subject of enquiry. The
simplicity of ancient times, in using the skins of beasts, is marked in
the word _loricum_, from the word _lorum_, a thong, and the word
_cuirasse_ is traceable to _cuir_, leather. Body harness has three general
divisions; mail; plate and mail mixed; plate mail entirely. Rows of iron
rings, sown on the dress, were the first defences, and then, for
additional defence, a row of larger rings was laid over the first. These
rings gave way to small iron plates which lapped over each other, and this
variety of mail is interesting, for armour now resembled the _lorica
squammata_ of the Romans, and hence ancient mail of this description has
generally been called scale-mail, while the ordinary appearance of armour
being like the meshes of a net, gained it the title of mail from the
_macula_ of the Latins, and the _maglia_ of the Italians. Sometimes the
plates were square, and sometimes of a lozenge form: but it would be
considering the matter much too curiously to divide armour into as many
species as the shapes and forms which a small piece of iron or steel was
capable of being divided into.[103]
All this variety of mail harness was sown on an under garment of leather
or cloth, or a more considerable wadding of various sorts of materials,
and called a gambeson. If the garment were a simple tunic or frock the
whole was called a hauberk. The lower members were defended by
_chausses_, which may be intelligible to modern understandings by the
words breeches or pantaloons. When the mailed frock and _chausses_ were
joined, the union was called the haubergeon. In each case, the back and
crown of the head were saved harmless by a hood of mail, which sometimes
formed part of the hauberk or haubergeon, and sometimes was detached. In
Spain, the hood and the other parts of the dress were united, if the case
of the Cid be held as evidence of the general state of manners; for after
his battles, he is always represented as slowly quitting the field with
his gory hood thrown back. The mail covered also the chin, and sometimes
the mouth; in the latter case the office of breathing being entirely
committed to the care of the nose. Finally, the sleeves of the jacket were
carried over the fingers, and a continuation of the _chausses_ protected
the toes.
"A goodly knight all armed in harness meet
That from his head no place appeared to his feete."
It is curious that foppery in armour began at the toe. It was the fashion
for the knight to have the toe of the mail several inches in length and
inclining downwards. To fight on foot with such incumbrances was
impossible, and, therefore the enemies of the crusaders (for foppery
prevailed even in religious wars) shot rather at the horses than at the
men. The fashion I am speaking of crossed the Pyrenees, for in the
pictorial representation of a tournament at Grenada, between Moorish and
Christian knights, the former are drawn with the broad shovel shoes of
their country, while the latter have long pointed shoes, like the
cavaliers of the North.
Such were the various descriptions of mail armour from the earliest æra of
chivalry to the thirteenth century. They were worn at different times in
different countries, and often in the same country at the same time by
different individuals: but at length so excellent an improvement was made
in chain mail, that military fashion could have no longer any pretence for
variety. The different descriptions of mail armour show the skill of the
iron-smiths among our ancestors, and that they were capable of inventing
the next and last great change. But as it was made at a time when the
Asiatic mode of warfare was known in Europe, and as the improvement I am
about to mention was the general mode of the Saracenian soldiers, it is as
probable that it was borrowed, as that it was invented. The rings of mail
were now no longer sewn on the dress, but they were interlaced, each ring
having four others inserted into it, and consequently the rings formed a
garment of themselves. The best coats of mail were made of double
rings.[104] The admirable convenience of this twisted or reticulated mail
secured its general reception. A knight was no longer encumbered by his
armour in travelling. His squire might be the bearer of his mail, for it
was both flexible and compact, or it could be rolled upon the hinder part
of a saddle.
[Sidenote: Mail and plate.]
[Sidenote: Plate harness.]
Before, however, this last great improvement in mail-armour took place,
changes were made in that general description of harness which foretold
its final fall, although it might be partially and for a time supported by
any particular invention of merit. Plates of solid steel or iron were
fixed on the breast or other parts of the body, where painful experience
had assured the wearer of the insufficiency of his metal rings. The new
fashion of reticulated mail added nothing to the strength of defence, and,
therefore, ingenuity and prudence were ever at work to make defensive
armour equal to offensive. New plates continually were added, and many of
them received their titles from the parts of the body which they were
intended to defend: the pectoral protected the breast, the cuisses were
for the thighs, the brassarts for the arms, the ailettes for the
shoulders, while the gorget defended the throat, and a scaly gauntlet
gloved the hand. The cuirass was the title for the defence of the breast
and the back. This mixed harness gained ground till the knight had nearly
a double covering of mail and plate. The plate was then found a perfect
defence, and the mail was gradually thrown aside; and thus, finally, the
warrior was entirely clad in steel plates. This harness was exceedingly
oppressive to the limbs, and therefore we find the circumstance so
frequently mentioned in old writers, that when a knight alighted at his
hostel or inn, he not only doffed his armour, but went into a bath. No
wonder that it was necessary to keep changes of dress to present to the
cavaliers who arrived. Plate-armour must have been as destructive of
clothes as the old chain mail, and describing his knight, Chaucer says,
"Of fustian he wered a gipon
Alle besmotred with his habergeon.
For he was of late y come fro his viage,
And wente for to don his pilgrimage."
The plate harness was in one respect far more inconvenient than the armour
it superseded. The coat of chain mail could be put on or slipped off with
instantaneous celerity; but the dressing of a plate-armed knight was no
simple matter.
"From the tents
The armourers, accomplishing the knights,
With busy hammers closing rivets up,
Give dreadful note of preparation."
Besides this deprivation of rest before a battle, the knight, in order to
prevent surprise, was obliged to wear his heavy harness almost constantly.
It is curious to observe, that chain mail formed some part of the harness
of a knight until the very last days of chivalry, chivalric feelings
seeming to be associated with that ancient form of armour. It was _let
into_ the plates round the neck, and thus there was a collar or tippet of
mail; and it also generally hung over other parts of the body, where,
agreeably to its shape and dimensions, it became, if I may again express
myself in the language of ladies, if not of antiquarians, an apron or a
short petticoat.
[Sidenote: The scarf.]
[Sidenote: Surcoats.]
The armour of the knight was often crossed by a scarf of silk embroidered
by his lady-love. He wore also a dress which in different times was
variously designated as a surcoat, a cyclas, or a tabard. It was long[105]
or short, it opened at the sides, in the back, or in the front, as fashion
or caprice ruled the wearer's mind; but it was always sleeveless.
Originally simple cloth was its material; but as times and luxury advanced
it became richer. For the reason that this sort of dress was almost the
only one in which the lords, knights, and barons could display their
magnificence, and because it covered all their clothing and armour, they
had it usually made of cloths of gold or silver, of rich skins, furs of
ermine, sables, minever, and others.[106] There was necessarily more
variety in the appearance of the surcoat than in that of any other part
of his harness, and hence it became the distinction of a knight. In public
meetings and in times of war the lords and knights were marked by their
coats of arms; and when they were spoken of, or when any one wished to
point them out by an exterior sign, it was sufficient to say, that he
wears a coat of or, argent, gules, sinople, sable, gris, ermine, or vair,
or still shorter, he bears or, gules, &c. the words coat of arms being
understood. But as these marks were not sufficient to distinguish in
solemn assemblies, or in times of war every lord, when all were clothed in
coats of arms of gold, silver, or rich furs, they, in process of time,
thought proper to cut the cloths of gold, and silver, and furs, which they
wore over their armour, into various shapes of different colours,
observing, however, as a rule never to put fur on fur, nor cloths of gold
on those of silver, nor those of silver on gold; but they intermixed the
cloths with the furs, in order to produce variety and relief.[107] With
these cloths and furs were mingled devices or cognizances symbolical of
some circumstance in the life of the knight, and with the crest the whole
formed in modern diction the coat of arms.
[Sidenote: Armorial bearings.]
Every feudal lord assumed the right of chusing his own armorial
distinctions: they were worn by all his family, and were hereditary. It
was also in his power to grant arms to knights and squires as marks of
honour for military merit; and from all these causes armorial distinctions
represented the feudalism, the gentry, and the chivalry of Europe. One
knight could not give more deadly offence to another than by wearing his
armorial bearings without his permission, and many a lance was broken to
punish such insolence. Kings, as their power arose above that of the
aristocracy, assumed the right of conferring these distinctions;--an
assumption of arms without royal permission was an offence, and the
business of heralds was enlarged from that of being mere messengers
between hostile princes into a court for the arranging of armorial
honours. Thus the usurpation of kings was beneficial to society, for
disputes regarding arms and cognisances were settled by heralds and not by
battle.
It is totally impossible to mark the history of these circumstances.
Instances of emblazoned sopra vests are to be met with in times anterior
to the crusades. They were worn during the continuance of mail and of
mixed armour: but they gradually went out of usage as plate armour became
general, it being then very much the custom to enamel or emboss the
heraldic distinctions on the armour itself, or to be contented with its
display on the shield or the banner. On festival occasions and
tournaments, however, all the gorgeousness of heraldic splendour was
exhibited upon the cyclas or tabard.
[Sidenote: Surcoats of the military orders.]
A word may be said on the surcoats of the military orders. The knights of
St. John and the Temple wore plain sopra vests, and their whole harness
was covered by a monastic mantle, marked with the crosses of their
respective societies. The colour of the mantle worn by the knights of St.
John was black, and from that colour being the usual monastic one, they
were called the military friars. Their cross was white. The brethren of
the Temple wore a white mantle with a red cross, and hence their frequent
title, the Red Cross Knights.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Helmets.]
The history of the covering of the head is not altogether unamusing. The
knight was not contented to trust the protection of that part of himself
to his mailed hood alone; he wore a helmet, whose shape was at first
conical, then cylindrical, and afterwards resumed its pristine form. The
defence of the face became a matter of serious consideration, and a broad
piece of iron was made to connect the frontlet of the helm with the mail
over the mouth.[108] This nasal piece was not in general use, it being a
very imperfect protection from a sword-cut, and the knight found it of
more inconvenience than service when his vanquisher held him to earth by
it. Cheek-pieces of bars, placed horizontally or perpendicularly, attached
to the helmet, were substituted or introduced. Then came the aventaile, or
iron mask, joined to the helmet, with apertures for the eyes and mouth. It
was at first fixed and immoveable, but ingenuity afterwards assisted those
face defences. By means of pivots the knight could raise or let fall the
plates or grating before the face, and the defence was called a vizor.
Subsequently, plates were brought up from the chin, and this moveable
portion of the helmet was called, as most people know, the bever, from the
Italian _bevere_, to drink. In early times the helmet was without
ornament; it afterwards (though the exact time it is impossible to fix)
was surmounted by that part of the armorial bearings called the crest. A
lady's glove or scarf was often introduced, and was not the least
beautiful ornament. The Templars and the knights of St. John were not
permitted to adorn their helmets with the tokens either of nobility or of
love; the simplicity of religion banishing all vain heraldic distinctions,
and the soldier-priests being obliged, like the monks themselves, to
pretend to that ascetic virtue which was so highly prized in the middle
ages.
All the splendour of chivalry is comprised in the helmet of prince Arthur.
"His haughty helmet, horrid all with gold,
Both glorious brightness and great terror bred;
For all the crest a dragon did enfold
With greedy paws, and over all did spred
His golden wings: his dreadful hideous head
Close couched on the bever, seem'd to throw
From flaming mouth bright sparkles fiery red,
That sudden horror to faint hearts did show,
And scaly tail was stretch'd adowne his back full low.
"Upon the top of all his lofty crest
A bunch of hairs discoloured diversely,
With sprinkled pearl and gold full richly drest,
Did shake and seem'd to dance for jollity,
Like to an almond-tree ymounted hye
On top of green Selinis all alone,
With blossoms brave bedecked daintily;
Whose tender locks do tremble every one
At every little breath that under heaven is blown."[109]
The helmet, with its vizor and bever, was carried by the squire, or page,
on the pommel of his saddle, a very necessary measure for the relief of
the knight, particularly when the sarcasm of the Duke of Orleans was
applicable, that "if the English had any intellectual armour in their
heads, they could never wear such heavy head-pieces."[110]
The reader should know, with the barber in Don Quixote, that, except in
the hour of battle, a knight wore only an open casque, or bacinet, a light
and easy covering. The bacinet derived its title from its resemblance to a
basin; but the word was sometimes used, however improperly, for the
helmet, the close helmet of knighthood. A vizor might be attached to the
bacinet, and then the covering for the head became a helmet. Bacinez à
visieres are often spoken of.
The helmet of war appeared to complete the perfection of defensive
harness; for the lance broke hurtless on the plate of steel, the arrow and
quarrel glanced away, and it is only in romance that we read of swords
cutting through a solid front of iron, or piercing both plate and mail, as
some bolder spirits say.
"From top to toe no place appeared bare,
That deadly dint of steel endanger may."[111]
[Sidenote: The dagger of mercy.]
The only way by which death could be inflicted was by thrusting a lance
through the small holes in the vizor. Such a mode of death was not very
common, for the cavalier always bent his face almost to the saddle-bow
when he charged. The knight, however, might be unhorsed in the shock of
the two adverse lines, and he was in that case at the mercy of the foe who
was left standing. But how to kill the human being inclosed in the rolling
mass of steel was the question; and the armourer, therefore, invented a
thin dagger, which could be inserted between the plates. This dagger was
called the dagger of mercy, apparently a curious title, considering it was
the instrument of death; but, in truth, the laws of chivalry obliged the
conqueror to shew mercy, if, when the dagger was drawn, the prostrate foe
yielded himself, rescue or no rescue.
* * * * *
It may be noticed that a dagger or short sword was worn by the knight even
in days of chain mail, for the hauberk was a complete case.
"Straight from his courser leaps the victor knight,
And bares his deadly blade to end the fight;
The uplifted hauberk's skirt he draws aside,
In his foe's flank the avenging steel is dyed."[112]
[Sidenote: Story of its use.]
Froissart's pages furnish us with an interesting tale, descriptive of the
general chivalric custom, regarding the dagger of mercy. About the year
1390, the lord of Langurante in Gascony rode forth with forty spears and
approached the English fortress called Cadilhac. He placed his company in
ambush, and said to them, "Sirs, tarry you still here, and I will go and
ride to yonder fortress alone, and see if any will issue out against us."
He then rode to the barriers of the castle, and desired the keeper to shew
to Bernard Courant, their captain, how that the lord Langurante was there,
and desired to joust with him a course. "If he be so good a man, and so
valiant in arms as it is said," continued the challenger, "he will not
refuse it for his ladies sake: if he do, it shall turn him to much blame,
for I shall report it wheresoever I go, that for cowardice he hath refused
to run with me one course with a spear."
A squire of Bernard reported this message to his master, whose heart
beginning to swell with ire, he cried, "Get me my harness, and saddle my
horse; he shall not go refused." Incontinently he was armed, and mounted
on his war steed, and taking his shield and spear, he rode through the
gate and the barriers into the open field. The lord Langurante seeing him
coming was rejoiced, and couched his spear like a true knight, and so did
Bernard. Their good horses dashed at each other, and their lances struck
with such equal fierceness that their shields fell in pieces, and as they
crossed Bernard shouldered sir Langurante's horse in such a manner that
the lord fell out of the saddle. Bernard turned his steed shortly round,
and as the lord Langurante was rising, his foe, who was a strong as well
as a valiant squire, took his bacinet with both his hands, and wrenching
it from his head, cast it under his horse's feet. On seeing all this the
lord of Langurante's men quitted their ambush, and were coming to the
rescue of their master, when Bernard drew his dagger, and said to the
lord, "Sir, yield you my prisoner, rescue or no rescue; or else you are
but dead." The lord, who trusted to the rescue of his men, spoke not a
word; and Bernard then gave him a death-blow on his bare head, and dashing
spurs into his horse, he fled within the barriers.[113]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Value of enquiries into ancient armour.]
Such was the general state of armour in days of chivalry. A more detailed
account of the subject cannot be interesting; for what boots it to know
the exact form and dimensions of any of the numerous plates of steel that
encased the knight. Nor indeed was any shape constant long; for fashion
was as variable and imperious in all her changes in those times as in
ours; and as we turn with contempt from the military foppery of the
present day, little gratification can be expected from too minute an
inspection of the vanities of our forefather. Chaucer says,
"With him ther wenten knights many on,
Some wol ben armed in an habergeon,
And in a breast-plate, and in a gipon;
And som wol have a pair of plates large;
And som wol have a pruse sheld or a targe.
Som wol ben armed on his legges well,
And have an axe, and some a mace stele.
Ther n'is no newe guise, that it n'as old.
_Armed they weren_, as I have you told,
_Everich after his opinion_."
[Sidenote: A precise knowledge unattainable.]
A chronological history of armour, minutely accurate, is unattainable, if
any deduction may be made from the books of laborious dulness which have
hitherto appeared on the armour of different countries. Who can affirm
that the oldest specimen which we possess of any particular form of
harness is the earliest specimen of its kind? No one can determine the
precise duration of a fashion; for after ruling the world for some time it
suddenly disappears, but some years afterwards it rears it's head again to
the confusion and dismay of our antiquarians.
Our best authorities sometimes fail us. The monumental effigies were not
always carved at the moment of the knight's death: that the bust is
tardily raised to buried merit is not the peculiar reproach of our times.
It is complimenting the sculptors of the middle ages too highly if we
suppose that they did not sometimes violate accuracy, in order to
introduce some favorite fashion of their own days. As for the
illuminations of manuscripts which are so much boasted of, they are often
the attempts of a scribe to imitate antiquity, beautiful in respect of
execution, but of problematical accuracy, and more frequently mark the age
when the manuscript was copied, than that when the work was originally
written. We know that violation of costume was common in the romances.
Thus, in the Morte d'Arthur, an unknown knight, completely armed, and
having his vizor lowered so as to conceal his features, entered the hall
of the king. Again,
"Cometh sir Launcelot du Lake,
Ridand right into the hall;
His steed and armour all was blake
His visere over his eyen falle,"[114]
Now if the romance whence the above lines are extracted is to be
considered as a picture of the earliest days of chivalry it is certainly
incorrect, for it was not before the middle age of knighthood that the
face was concealed by a vizor, the earlier defence of the nasal piece
certainly not serving as a mask. The romances are unexceptionable
witnesses for the general customs of chivalry, but we cannot fix their
statements to any particular time, for they were varied and improved by
successive repetitions and transcriptions, and when they were rendered
into prose still further changes were made in order to please the taste of
the age. Thus, in an old Danish romance, a knight fighting for his lady
remains on his horse; but when in the fifteenth century the tale was
translated into the idioms of most chivalric countries, he is represented
as alighting from his milk-white steed and giving it to his fair companion
to hold; and the reason of this departure from the old ballad was, that
the translators, wishing to make their work popular, adapted it to the
manners of the age; and it was the general fashion then for the knights to
dismount when they fought.
[Sidenote: Its general features interesting]
In spite of all our attempts at chronological accuracy, something or other
is perpetually baffling us. We commonly think that mixed armour was the
defensive harness in the days of our Edward the Third; but in Chaucer's
portrait of the knightly character of that time, only the haubergeon is
assigned to the cavalier. Plate-armour seems to have been the general
costume of the fifteenth century; and in any pictorial exhibition of the
murder of John Duke of Burgundy in the year 1419, the artist who should
represent the Duke as harnessed in chain-mail, would be condemned by a
synod of archæologists as guilty of an unpardonable anachronism; yet we
know, on the unquestionable authority of Monstrelet, that when the Duke
lay on the ground, Olivier Layet, assisted by Pierre Frotier, thrust a
sword under the haubergeon into his belly; and that after he had been thus
cruelly murdered, the Dauphin's people stripped from him his coat of
mail.[115] But though it is difficult to determine the fashion of any part
of armour in any particular century, and life may afford nobler
occupations than considering the precise year and month when the Normans
gave up the clumsy expedient of inserting the sword through a hole in the
hauberk, and adopted the more graceful and convenient form of a
belt[116], yet viewing the subject of armour in some of its broad
features, matter of no slight interest may be found. We may not regard the
precise form and fashion of a warrior's scarf, or care to enquire whether
the embroidery were worked with gold or silver, but the general fact
itself involves the state of manners and feelings among our ancestors: it
carries us to the lady's bower where she was working this token of love;
our fancy paints the time and mode of bestowing it; and we follow it
through all the subsequent career of the knight as his silent monitor to
courage and loyalty.
[Sidenote: The broad lines of the subject.]
It is curious also to mark the perpetual efforts of defensive armour to
meet the improvements in the art of destruction. Chain-mail was found an
inadequate protection; plates of steel were added, and still this mixed
harness did not render the body invulnerable. The covering of steel alone
at length became complete, and defensive harness reached its perfection.
It is utterly impossible for us to state with accuracy the year when
plate-armour began to be mixed with chain-mail in any particular country,
or to determine what particular part of the body the first plate that was
used defended; but the general features of the subject are known well
enough to enable us to sketch to our imagination the military costume of
some of the most remarkable events in the warfare of the middle ages. In
the first crusade, the armour was in the rude state of mail worn on the
tunic. There was the emblazoned surcoat, for that part of dress was of
very early use; the hood was the common covering of the head, and when the
helmet was worn it was of the simplest form, and occasionally had a nasal
piece. The crusades began at the close of the eleventh century, and before
the end of the thirteenth, not only was the hauberk composed of twisted
mail, but mixed armour of plate and mail was common. The English wars in
France during the reign of our Edward III. are the next subject to which
our chivalric recollections recur. By that time plate had attained a
general predominance over chain-mail. Perhaps, at no period of chivalry
was armour more beautiful than in those days when France was one vast
tilting ground for the culled and choice-drawn cavaliers of the two mighty
monarchies of Europe. It was equally removed from the gloomy sternness of
chain-mail, and the elaborate foppery of embossed steel: its solid plates
satisfied the judicious eye by showing that the great principle of armour
was chiefly attended to, and the surcoat and scarf gave the warrior's
harness a character of neat and simple elegance. The horses, too, were
barded in the most vulnerable parts; the symmetry of the form not being
obscured, as it was in after-times by a casing of steel which left only
part of the legs free of action. The helmet had its crest and silken
ornament; the former being the sign of nobility, the latter of love: and
no warriors were so justly entitled to those graceful tokens of ladies'
favour, as the warriors of Edward III., for love was the inspiring soul of
their chivalry.[117]
In the second series of our French wars complete plate-armour was in
general fashion. Gradually, as armour became more and more ponderous, the
knights preferred to fight on foot with their lances. That mode of
encounter was found best fitted for the display of skill, for in the rude
encounter of the horses many cavaliers were thrown, and the field
presented a ludicrous spectacle of rolling knights.[118] Some traces of
the custom of cavalry dismounting may be found in the twelfth century. The
practice grew as plate-armour became mixed with mail; and when complete
suits of steel were worn, knights sought every occasion of dismounting;
and they were wont to break their lances short for the convenience of the
close conflict.
As the spirit of chivalry died away, the military costume of chivalry
increased in brilliancy and splendour. Ingenuity and taste were
perpetually varying decorations: the steel was sometimes studded with
ornaments of gold and silver, and sometimes the luxury of the age was
displayed in a complete suit of golden armour.
"In arms they stood
Of golden panoply, refulgent host."
But such splendour was only exhibited in the courteous tournament; less
costly armour sheathed the warrior of the working day. Armour gradually
fell out of use as infantry began to be considered and felt as the
principal force in war. It was not, however, till the beginning of the
seventeenth century that the proud nobility of Europe would abandon the
mode of combat of their ancestors, and no longer hope that their iron
armour of proof should hang up in their halls as an incentive to their
children's valour. "They first laid aside the jambes or steel boots; then
the shield was abandoned, and next the covering for the arms. When the
cavalry disused the lance, the cuisses were no longer worn to guard
against its thrust, and the stout leathern or buff coat hung down from
beneath the body armour to the knees, and supplied the place of the
discarded steel. The helmet was later deprived of its useless vizor; but
before the middle of the seventeenth century nothing remained of the
ancient harness but the open cap and the breasts and backs of steel, which
the heavy cavalry of the Continent have more or less worn to our times. In
our service these have been but lately revived for the equipment of the
finest cavalry in Europe, the British Life-guards, who, unaided by such
defences, tore the laurels of Waterloo from the cuirassiers of
France."[119]
[Sidenote: Excellence of Italian armour.]
The history of armour would be interesting in another point of view, if
any of the great battles in the middle ages had been decided by the
superior qualities of any particular weapon possessed by either side. No
such circumstances are recorded. Nor can we trace the progress of armour
through the various countries of chivalry. But the superiority of Italian
civilisation, and our knowledge that the long-pointed sword was invented
in Italy, authorise our giving much honour to the Italians; and we also
know that down to the very latest period of chivalric history Milanese
armour was particularly esteemed.[120] Germany, as far as the ancient
martial costume of that country is known, can claim nothing of invention,
nor did armour always take in that country during its course from Italy
through other lands. France quickly received all the varieties in armour
of Italian ingenuity, and in a few years they, passed into England. This
geographical course was not however the usual mode of communicating ideas
in chivalric ages. Knights of various countries met in tournaments, and
in those splendid scenes every description of armour was displayed, and
fashions were interchanged.
Notwithstanding the general similarity of costume which these gallant and
friendly meetings of cavaliers in tournaments were likely to produce, each
nation had its peculiarities which it never resigned. Thus it may be
mentioned that the swords of the Germans and also of the Normans were
always large, and that those of the French were short. As the bow was the
great weapon of the Normans, the attendants of the English knights used
the bow more frequently than similar attendants in any other country. The
peasantry of Scotland, in spite of repeated statutes, never would use the
bow: spears and axes were their weapons, while their missiles were
cross-bows and culverins. The mace was also a favourite, and their swords
were of excellent temper. Their defensive armour was the plate-jack,
hauberk, or brigantine; and a voluminous handkerchief round their neck,
"not for cold but for cutting," as one of their writers describes it.
Almost all the Scottish forces, except a few knights, men-at-arms, and the
border prickers, who formed excellent light cavalry, acted upon
foot.[121]
[Sidenote: Of the knight's armour; of the squire, &c.]
Little need be said concerning the military costume of the esquire, and
the men-at-arms. The esquire wore silver spurs in distinction from the
golden spurs of the knight; but when an esquire as a member of the third
class of chivalry held a distinct command, he was permitted to bear at the
end of his lance a penoncel, or small triangular streamer. In countries
where the bow was not used, the weapons of the men-at-arms were generally
the lance and the sword. This was the case when the knight led his
personal retainers to battle; but when his followers were the people of
any particular town which he protected, few chivalric arms were borne, and
the bill more frequently than the spear was brought into the field. The
cross-bow can hardly be considered a weapon of chivalry. It required no
strength of arm like the long-bow; it allowed none of that personal
display which was the soul of knighthood. The popes, to their honour,
frequently condemned its use; and it was more often bent by mercenaries
than the regular attendants of knights.
The men-at-arms generally fought on horseback, and it often happened that
archers, after the Asiatic mode, were mounted. The defensive armour of the
knight's attendants was not so complete as his own, for they could not
afford its costliness, and difference of rank was marked by difference of
harness. Thus, in France, only persons possessed of a certain estate were
permitted to wear the haubergeon, while esquires had nothing more than a
simple coat of mail, without hood or hose[122], though their rank in
nobility might equal that of the knights. The men-at-arms had generally
the pectoral and the shield, and the morion or open helmet, without vizor
or beaver. They frequently wore a long and large garment called the
aketon, gambeson, or jack, formed of various folds of linen cloth or
leather: but it is totally impossible to give any useful or interesting
information on a subject which caprice or poverty perpetually varied.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Allegories made on armour.]
Armour had other purposes in the mind of the knight besides its common and
apparent use. Days of chivalry were especially times when imagination was
in its freest exercise, and every thing was full of allegories and
recondite meanings. To the knight a sword was given in resemblance of a
cross to signify the death of Christ, and to instruct him that he ought to
destroy the enemies of religion by the sword. This is intelligible; but
there is something apparently arbitrary in the double edge signifying that
a knight should maintain chivalry and justice. The spear, on account of
its straitness, was the emblem of truth, and the iron head meant
strength, which truth should possess. The force and power of courage were
expressed by the mace. The helmet conveyed the idea of shamefacedness; and
the hauberk was emblematical of the spiritual panoply which should protect
a man and a soldier from the vices to which his nature was liable. The
spurs meant diligence. The gorget was the sign of obedience; for as the
gorget went about the neck protecting it from wounds, so the virtue of
obedience kept a knight within the commands of his sovereign and the order
of chivalry; and thus neither treason nor any other foe to virtue
corrupted the oath he had taken to his lord and knighthood. The shield
showed the office of a knight; for as the knight placed his shield between
himself and his enemy, so the knight was the barrier between the king and
the people, and as the stroke of a sword fell upon the shield and saved
the knight, so it behoved the knight to present his body before his lord
when he was in danger. The equipment and barding of the horse furnished
also subjects of instruction. The saddle meant safety of courage; for as
by the saddle a knight was safe on his horse, so courage was the knight's
best security in the field. The great size of the saddle was regarded as
emblematical of the greatness of the chivalric charge. It was added, that
as the head of a horse went before its rider, so should reason precede
all the acts of a knight; and as the armour at the head of a horse
defended the horse, so reason kept the knight from blame. The defensive
armour of a horse illustrated the necessity of wealth to a knight; for a
knight without estate could not maintain the honours of chivalry, and be
protected from temptation, for poverty opens the door to treason and vice.
It was in this manner that the romantic imaginations of the knights of
chivalry drew moralities from subjects apparently little capable of
furnishing instruction; and then assuming a more sober and rational tone,
they would exclaim that chivalry was not in the horse, nor in the arms,
but was in the knight, who taught his horse well, and accustomed himself
and his sons to noble actions and virtuous deeds; and a foul and recreant
knight, who taught himself and his son evil works, converted one into the
other, the cavaleresque and equestrian qualities, making himself and his
son beasts, and his horse a knight.[123]
[Sidenote: The horse of the knight.]
Before we close our account of the cavalier's equipment, something must be
said regarding his steed, his _good_ steed, as he was fond of calling him.
The horse of the knight was necessarily an animal of great power when his
charge was a cavalier with his weighty armour. The horses of Spain were
highly famed. In the country itself those of Asturia were preferred, but
in other chivalric states they regarded not the particular province
wherein the horse was bred.[124] The favourite steed of William the
Conqueror came from Spain. The crusades were certainly the means of
bringing Asiatic horses into Europe; and it was found that the Arabian,
though smaller than the bony charger of the west, had a compensating power
in his superior spirit. French and English romance writers were not from
natural prejudices disposed to praise any productions of Heathenesse, yet
the Arabian horse is frequently commended by them. That doughty knight,
Guy, a son of Sir Bevis of Hampton,
----"bestrode a _Rabyte_,[125]
That was mickle and nought _light_,[126]
That Sir Bevis in Paynim lond
Had iwunnen with his hond."
The Arab horse was the standard of perfection, as is evident from the
romancer's praise of the two celebrated steeds, Favel and Lyard, which
Richard Coeur de Lion procured at Cyprus.
"In the world was not their peer,
Dromedary, nor destreer,
Steed, Rabyte, ne Camayl,
That ran so swift sans fail.
For a thousand pounds of gold
Should not that one be sold."
The Arabian horse must have been already prepared for part of the
discipline of a chivalric horse. On his own sandy plains he had been
accustomed to stop his career when his fleetness had cast the rider from
his seat; and in the encounter of lances so often were knights overthrown,
that to stand firm, ready to be mounted again, was a high quality of a
good horse. The steed of the Cid was very much celebrated in Spain; and,
in acknowledgment for an act of great kindness, the owner wished to
present him to the king, Alfonso of Castile. To induce the king to accept
him, he showed his qualities.
"With that the Cid, clad as he was in mantle furr'd and wide,
On Bavieca vaulting, put the rowel in his side;
And up and down, and round and round, so fierce was his career,
Stream'd like a pennon on the wind Ruy Diaz' minivere.
And all that saw them prais'd them,--they lauded man and horse,
As matched well, and rivalless for gallantry and force.
Ne'er had they look'd on horseman might to this knight come near,
Nor on other charger worthy of such a cavalier.
Thus, to and fro a-rushing, the fierce and furious steed,
He snapp'd in twain his hither rein:--'God pity now the Cid;'
'God pity Diaz,' cried the Lords;--but when they look'd again,
They saw Ruz Diaz ruling him with the fragment of his rein;
They saw him proudly ruling, with gesture firm and calm,
Like a true Lord commanding,--and obey'd as by a lamb.
And so he led him foaming and panting to the king,
But 'No,' said Don Alphonso, 'it were a shameful thing
That peerless Bavieca should ever be bestrid
By any mortal but Bivar,--mount, mount again, my Cid.'"[127]
It has been often said that the knight had always his ambling palfrey, on
which he rode till the hour of battle arrived; and that the war-horse,
from the circumstance of his being led by the right hand of the squire,
was called dextrarius.[128] With respect to sovereigns and men of great
estate this was certainly the custom, but it was by no means a general
chivalric practice. Froissart's pages are a perfect picture of knightly
riding and combatting; and each of his favorite cavaliers seems to have
had but one and the same steed for the road and the battle-plain. Even
romance, so prone to exaggerate, commonly represents the usage as similar;
for when we find that a damsel is rescued, she is not placed upon a spare
horse, but the knight mounts her behind himself.[129]
The _destrier_, _cheval de lance_, or war-steed, was armed or barded[130]
very much on the plan of the harness of the knight himself, and was
defended, therefore, by mail or plate, agreeably to the fashion of the
age. His head, chest, and flanks were either wholly or partially
protected, and sometimes, on occasions of pomp, he was clad in complete
steel, with the arms of his master engraven or embossed on his bardings.
His caparisons and housings frequently descended so low that they were
justly termed bases, from the French _bas à bas_, upon the ground. His
head, too, was ornamented with a crest, like the helmet of a knight. The
bridle of the horse was always as splendid as the circumstances of the
knight allowed; and thus a horse was often called Brigliadore, from
_briglia d'oro_, a bridle of gold. The knight was fond of ornamenting the
partner of his perils and glories. The horse was not always like that of
Chaucer's knight;
"His hors was good, but he was not gay."
Bells were a very favourite addition to the equipment of a horse,
particularly in the early times of chivalry. An old Troubadour poet,
Arnold of Marsan, states very grave reasons for wearing them. He says,
"Let the neck of the knight's horse be garnished with bells well hung.
Nothing is more proper to inspire confidence in a knight, and terror in an
enemy." The war-horse of a soldier of a religious order of knighthood
might have his collar of bells, for their jangling was loved by a monk
himself.
"And when he rode men might his bridel hear,
Gingeling in a whistling wind as clere,
And eke as loud as doth the chapel bell."
But here the comparison ceases, for the horse-furniture of the religious
soldiers was ordered to be free from all golden and silver ornaments.[131]
This regulation was however ill observed; for the knights-templars in the
middle of the thirteenth century were censured for having their bridles
embroidered, or gilded, or adorned with silver.[132]