[Timothy Gulics]

Hello guys,

A friend and I were discussing the Grosse Messer and they mentioned that in Europe (at some time) commoners were not allowed to have actual swords, but they could carry large knives. Hence the grosse messer. I'm not sure if my friend is correct or not... does anyone know the truth behind this? Since the grosse messer is very much like a falchion, and a falchion was a -sword-, I have my doubts as to the story.

[Carl Croushore]

If I remember correctly from my medieval history classes, it depended on the provincial lord's ruling whether commoners were permitted to have swords. Very few allowed swords to my recollection, as the sword was viewed as a "noble" weapon.

Spears, clubs (nasty spiky ones included), and other agrarian utensils were a product of the vassals' workday, so they could not be as tightly controlled.

Not knowing specifics on the origin of the falchion (even Ewart Oakeshott had a hard time defining its lineage in his Archeology of Arms and Armor), I'd say that the Messer family of swords probably got its start with ever-increasing enlargements of permitted knives, perhaps being the origin of the hunting "sword".

Hmm...this warrants some research. Grrr...something knew to look up. Drat you, Tim!

-- Carl Croushore

[Timothy Gulics]

Sorry

You guys are supposed to love to do research! Plus, my own means of research is limited at the moment

Thanks for the reply. It lends credibility to my friend's story, and it makes sense!

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Carl Croushore]

Nice link Joachim. My thanks!

-- Carl Croushore

[Roger Hooper]

It depends on who and when we are talking about. A commoner would more likely own a sword around 1450 than 1050. Also, are you talking about a man-at-arms or a very low level footman in a fuedal levy? A professional, merecenary man-at arms or archer, a type that came to prominance during the 100 Years War, could very likely have his own sword. Also, many could have had a sword "on loan", so to speak. There is evidence to suggest that lords or mercenary captains had their own armories. They would issue swords and other equipment to their followers and take them back when the campaign was over.

If you are talking about a typical peasant or townsman, then they were very unlikely to have a sword, a very expensive item.

[Peter Johnsson]

I think owning of swords was much more common than we migh think. There were bans on wearing swords in towns, but that is a specific situation. You were still allowed to carry tools of your trade, knives and daggers, though. Just not weapons that were regarded as tools of war or murder. This applies to the high/late middle ages.

In Sweden landowning farmers were obliged by law to arm themselves. We can read about this in our earliest lawbooks. This might include polearm, axe or sword, mail and helmet. If you were well off you were supposed to have a horse rady for service as well. This is then the opposite of the popular idea that peasants were not allowed to arm themsselves.

City levies were often expected to own some or all their weapons.

Fencing clubs catered for commoners, teaching the art of longsword...

I guess you cannot make a broad statement that would cover all Europe during all periods regarding the common man and rights/restrictions regarding swords.

I would expect there might be some social taboos as to when and who might carry a sword, but these were probably not intended to excluding owning a sword all together.

I would like to see those laws that spell out a law against common men owning swords. You keep hearing this was often the case, but I have never seen such a text quoted. It would be interesting to see the basis for this idea.

What there might be are texts banning the owning of weapons in certain areas during unrestfull times, but that does not say much of the normal situation.

Anyone with knowledge of texts regarding this?

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Peter Johnsson]

[quote="Joachim Nilsson"]

[Björn Hellqvist]

I've posted it before, but here's an engraving by Albrecht Dürer, showing three peasants c. 1500 AD. Please note the Hauswehr carried by the man to the left, and the state of the scabbard of the (14th century?) sword.

[Jay Barron]

A bit OT but I also notice that the peasant on the right is wearing spurs indicating that he rides a horse. I was under the impression that a peasant wouldn't be able to afford a horse.

[Robert Zamoida]

What about the possiblilty of battlefield looting? If some of the numbers of casualties are to be believed, then given any one battle there would be hundreds, if not thousands of various weapons and armor just laying around. It could have been expected, maybe even encouraged that peasant soldiers/conscripts would be expected to arm themselves from the fallen.

[James Aldrich]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[quote="Peter Johnsson"]

[Jeanry Chandler]

I think the reason why this issue of commoners arms is confusing is that there were two different traditions in Europe which were opposed to each other and often actively struggled against each other. The first tradition is the old tribal tradition of the Celts, Germans, Iberians, Goths etc., wherin each free member of the tribe was expected to come to muster at the tribes defense in times of strife. Over time, as exposure to the Classical Mediterannian civiliazations increased, there was increasing differentiation between fighters and non-fighters, and between Chiefs, who once were very limited in power like North American Indian chiefs, (yer 'folk kings' from beowulf) and subjects.

Gradually, From the Halstadt Celtic period through th La Tene you can see the difference in burial habits, reflecting increasing differentiation of nobles from commoners, though still nothing anywhere near what you saw later in the Feudal societies of the middle ages. Decisions were still made by tribal council and by elected magistrates, but the fighters became the voting class. You could still see this until very recently in Switzerland, where men in some cantons had to show up with a dagger in order to be able to vote.

Then after the rise and fall of the Western Roman Empire you have emulation of Roman aristocracy. You also see the rise of the heavy cavalry. Historically cavalry is almost always an aristocratic arm, where much more often Infantry, particularly militia levvys, are the halmark of more free federations. The aristocratic traditions of the Romans and of the East were emulated by the new chieftans like those of the Franks, (and by autocratic "kings" often appointed by the Romans to control subject peoples) and here you saw the heavy push downward of political rights and power, and therefore living conditions and wealth of the rural working farmer class and the urban artisans and workers.

This was uneven though. In many areas, particularly Eastern Europe, you saw the Church and the Nobility push the peasant down to the point of being a serf. Part of this process were the so-called Sumptuary laws which forbade the wearing of certain clothes by commoners, and also what arms they could wear (like swords), what animals they could own and how many (horses) and even such details as how many plates they could have and how many dishes they could serve at a meal. They also did nice stuff like enacting laws allowing the landlord to rape the peasants wife on her wedding day.

In a lot of other areas though which for whatever reason lacked strong kings or nobles or bishops, the old tribal militias remained, and they kept not only their traditional arms, but also the training which went with it. There was often an active struggle between the rich aristocrats and clergy (and later the burghers of the richer cities) against the armed peasantry, particularly those of the hinterland, who were often ethnic nationalists (Ireland, Scotland, Flanders) and in some cases formed hyper-egalitarian religious doctrines (the Hussites, the anabaptists of the German Peasant uprising, for example) . In many cases as with the Hussites and especially the Swiss, they were quite successful against the aristocrats. They were also often crushed, like the Jacquerie and the German Peasant uprisings, and in other places it was more of a stalemate, such as the process where the Christian / Monarchy faction put kings in charge of so much of Scandinaiva, while many Scandinavians fled to Iceland where they tried to reinstate their old libertarian tribal goverment, with mixed success.

And of course, there were a lot of gray areas, where peasants hung onto certain rigths bitterly, as in England with some of the right of way laws, say, while still knuckling under to the ultimate power of the monarch and / or the Bishop.

So in places like Bohemia, Switzerland, Scotland, Sweeden etc., the traditions of staying armed remained stubbornly. (It's interesting to me indeed that to this day Switzerland and Norway both have quite liberal gun laws, while Monarchist England has almost utterly banned them...)

JR




Cavalry (aristocratic) versus infantry (libertarian)

[MD Norcross]

"They also did nice stuff like enacting laws allowing the landlord to rape the peasants wife on her wedding day. "

While true enough, the purpose was not to debase the peasantry or lower them to the level of serfs, but rather to serve the political purpose of protecting the (often foreign) local lord from his subjects. Swapping/granting of estates was an extremely popular practice in the settlement of disputes, the result on the local scene being that the lord could be from an entirely foreign district, even of a forein country. To "make the people his", the lord had the right at first shot at impregnating the brides, and in that day and age, who knew who the father was? a bunch of bastards in the neighborhood made the people less likely to murder "one of the family." Other than Braveheart, a political saga and not a history, we probably have little contemporary history of how the peasantry viewed such practices. In the more ancient cultures, where fertility rites were common, is it too much to suggest that there was a certain degree of honor in sleeping with the supreme male fertility symbol of the tribe? These traditions are echoed even in later periods, e.g. Henry VIII, where we see the great lengths the monarchies would take to ensure a male lineage as a symbol of the divine right to rule.

[Felix Wang]

in re: "They also did nice stuff like enacting laws allowing the landlord to rape the peasants wife on her wedding day. "

As far as I know, this privilege is a later day myth, much like the 15 pound sword and the knight who needed a crane to get on his horse.

[Steve Fabert]

[MD Norcross]

Felix, you always seem to come up with such facinating references. Interesting article, despite its use of editorial perjoratives, e.g. "despotic practices," without any real evidence to suggest that the term is aptly employed. The "male power display" stuff, if not understood in its proper context as a male mating ritual rather than some sort of chauvanism, could be read in an inflammatory manner. I think, though, that the male power display and the ancient fertility function are as much connected as the ball and sceptre, the symbols of male virility. A nonvirile male is not entitled to hold to power; therefore there must be some display, if even a symbolic one, of the virility of the Lord. In a very direct way, the practice is no different than the dionyssian orgies or (if they have any historic basis) the "Beltane Fires as described in The Mists of Avalon (the book, not the movie). The jus primae noctis is therefore arguably as much a blessing of the future fertiluty of the union as anything else, even if it later became a great excuse to collect taxes in a nonpagan era.