[Jeremy V. Krause]

Hello everyone,

I know wikiedia isn't the greatest resource out there but in my casual web browsing I came across a notion/question posed in the wikipedia article on the medieval tournament:

"It is a vexed issue as to what extent specialized arms and armour were used in mêlée tournaments. A further question that might be raised is to what extent the military equipment of knights and their horses in the 12th and 13th centuries was devised to meet the perils and demands of tournaments, rather than warfare. It is however clear from the sources that the weapons used in tournaments were initially the same as those used in war." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(medieval)

So I suppose my more specific interest here lies within this question in the context of the High Medieval period.

What do you guys think of this wikipedia quote? Have you encountered this question in you own studies or seen interesting interesting aspects of original pieces that could inform this issue?

Lastly, I must say I find it very interesting and a bit perplexing that fully sharpened Oakeshott type X, Xa, Xi, Xia, and Xii and variants would be used in a context in which fatal wounds were not the immediate focus of such conflict.

What do folks think?

P.S. Another interesting thing stated in this Wikipedia article is that the last tournament occurred in Bruges in 1379. My understanding is that they went well into the 15th. c. Was I wrong or is there something wrong with this entry?

[Craig Peters]

I do not think this comment really applies much to the High Middle Ages. Remember that the word tournament, especially in the context of the 12th century, is a misnomer, because it implies that tournaments were significantly different from battles. Remember that the early tournaments were essentially battles with a few more rules, but were still fought earnestly and with sharp weapons too. Ransoming played a significant role in the early tournaments, which might seem to make them dissimilar to battles, but ransoming also played a significant role in real battles too, which must not be overlooked.

Early tournaments were even thought of by contemporaries in terms of being like battles. Richard the Lionheart introduced the tourneying circuit in the Anglo-Angevin realm partially because of the finances it could bring to him, but also because it was acknowledged that French knights were among the most skillful fighters because of all the tournaments they fought in. In other words, he was using it as a means of training for war. Famously, William the Breton, in his account of the Battle of Bouvines even likened the battle to tourneying.

The evidence supports the conclusion that, early on at least, there was not a hard and fast distinction to be made between tournaments and war. Furthermore, to my knowledge, specialized weapons for the purpose of tournaments did not begin to appear until at least the 14th century, so the discussion seems like a moot point to me.

[Mrak E.Smith]

In one of the leading military historian John Keegan 's A History of Warfare, he presents a similar statement that the equipments of knights is more suitable in tournament or influenced by tournament and joust practising.

[Craig Peters]

Here's another thing too: the question seems to presuppose that there is a significant difference between weapons designed for war and weapons designed for tournament. From that, and from historical examples that I've seen, it seems to me that the weapons designed in tournaments would have been specialized for tournament usage. After all, if weapons for tournaments are different from those of war, one would expect that the weapons influenced by tournament designs would be made to be safer, and less dangerous. Therefore, it seems somewhat improbable that the weapons designed in tournaments would be used in a warfare context.

[Elling Polden]

What kind of adaptations does he mean? I can't think of any tournament adaptations in that period, maybe with the exception of the coat of plates in the late 13th c....

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Well my understanding,

From Wikipedia lol - as Ive not done very much reading on the specific subject of the tournament, is that weapons would have been the same for both war and tournament during the 12th, and part of the 13th. c. The article states that there is period mention in the middle of the 13th. c., that swords should be blunted for tournament- thus indicating this was not a universal practice.

Now, later, into the 15th c. there are certainly armor modification for tournament use. But this article states that the tournament as it is understood, was not being practiced anymore at that time. I was surprised at this statement, and frankly, don't understand it, as I have seen many mentions of the tournament occuring in these latter middle ages.

[Quinn W.]

I would say the tournament as popular imagery goes actually only really got started in the 14th century. Before that tournaments were used as training tools and battle simulations. The 14th century saw a transition into the tournament into more of a spectacle that was quite distinct from true battle. The tilt (the fence between two jousters) was only added in the 15th century, and one need only look at the various harnesses designed for Henry VIII specifically for use in tournaments to see that they were alive and well even at the top of society well past 1379.

[Craig Peters]

I think the confusion is arising from how they've used the word "tournament". They are not using "tournament" to refer to a joust or another other formal pageant involving the display of skill and arms. Rather, the article seems to be using the word to exclusively refer to a semi-structured melee involving competing teams of knights wielding steel weapons.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Weapons for tournaments might be optimized for safety when used, as they would be, with tournament armour, so wouldn't really influence the design of more effective and dangerous weapons.

Armour developments might have influenced better fit and coverage of armour, better heat treat of armour when the armour was heat treated and improved the skills of high end armour makers maybe in the way that car racing influences better car components, materials, design etc ....

For real battle lighter kit, partial armour coverage might have been preferred for practical reasons.

Armour for a set battle might be maximized, but chevauché or armour for a long sustained campaign might be optimized differently.

As others have suggested before the 15th or 16th century jousting was just more or less friendly and competitive war practice with blows and targets weighted just barely more lightly or controlled to not deliberately kill, but it was a rough sport and casualties would often happen.

The armour being sufficiently protective that the odds of being killed where just a bit less when the tournaments where friendly practice compared to full out trying to kill in a real fight ? Although, capture and ransom probably induced some restraints even in war to avoid killing blows versus knocking down and disarming blows ?

( Well, I'm mostly speculating here, so don't take this a proof of anything. ).

[Jared Smith]

[Timo Nieminen]

Are the punishments for tournament deaths aimed at reducing accident deaths in tournaments - perhaps by reducing tournament activity or encouraging higher safety standards - or aimed at reducing deliberately lethal tournaments?

The most famous example of the latter that comes to mind is the Combat of the Thirty, but I've read of various other examples, sometimes with armour being prohibited (and survivors surviving due to cheating, wearing concealed mail shirts), sometimes large teams, sometimes smaller affairs.

Some interesting accounts, with much death and bloodshed, in this collection of accounts of Deeds of Arms.

Whether or not the smallest would be tournaments, as opposed to duels (although "duel" implies a single opponent rather than an open challenge to all), I don't know. Further on terminology, much of this kind of activity is described by the more generic hastiludium or hastilude, and tournament is often more narrowly intended. But I think the current context of tournament vs war in weapon design suggests a broader meaning for tournament.

[Jared Smith]