[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jared Smith]

I don't have the sources and exact pages ready to quote, but several of my texts mention that Henry the Black Prince actually enjoyed the reputation of foraying into enemy territory unarmoured. For general scouting, spying, and foraging, one might choose not to dress in a manner that gives away status as an enemy soldier or ransom worthy target. This has relevance today. If one thinks about it, the career of a medieval knight often included less than 30 days (more days prepared for possibility of battle in siege, but not much more actual open field combat) of armoured battle spread out over a period of one to two decades.

[Sean Belair]

one of the conspirators in the assassination attempt on the medici brothers hugged lorenzo to see if he was warring a brest plate under his clothes

[Chase S-R]

in a museum in england there is a painted leather bit of armour that is shown next to a steel counterpart it was thin leather and looked unprotective the sign said that it was most likely worn when attack seemed unlikely but to appear armed and ready so as not to provoke highwaymen etc. it was 3 or 4 yrs, ago that i saw this

[Peter Bosman]

[Luka Borscak]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Jared Smith]

What I meant is that there were such things as foraging, and scouting. We know from period accounts that knights, in addition to others, did this. I am not sure what cultures and times considered it spying to be traveling in enemy country incognito, but am certain that it was done then, and is still being done by some groups today.

I agree with Peter's assessment that the knight was expected to sustain an image of social status. William Wallace is a great example as his deeds are among the more heroic, lavishly generous, and at the extreme end of being a steadfast patron towards a life long group of allies. He was also sought after as a celebrity court guest, entertaining with jokes and anecdotes of his travels. His rise in status and authority was at least partly the result of his multi-national network of friends and courtly status, not just his military prowess.

We do know that knights sometimes traveled unarmoured. As an example, while traveling towards crusade, in the city of Messina in Feb 2, 1191, Richard I met William des Barres. They and others engaged in an impromptu tournament / behourd on the road using cane staves. The contest was not gentle. Richard attempted to wrestle des Barres of of his horse. Barres was pronounced the winner after he dislodged Richards hat (forgot the specific name, but the exact style of the hat was named and indicated a high quality courtly dress hat, not a "head piece" as given in some mistranslated accounts) and battered the hat in the dirt of the road, effectively ruining it. We also know that there was hostility between the two groups (Richard had des Barres siezed, argued for ships to be ransomed, etc., it was a near political catastrophe.) Richard held a life long grudge against des Barres after this humiliation. The scope and detail of the account illustrates that two of the figures of that era, who valued knightly status very highly, were traveling in foreign lands, during a period of active conquest, and meeting very tenuous allies in courtly dress clothes.

[Peter Bosman]

[Jared Smith]

I am also wondering if knights in the 12th to 13th century era would have had specific swords for instances where they were adventuring unarmoured, or in more of a formal dress situation? I don't remember previous topics of arming swords and riding swords reaching anything conclusive in that era. In earlier times the sword was as much a visible symbol of knightly status as the armour. To be "belted" or girded with a sword presented by a Lord upon knighting was considered an honor. The tradition changed over time, and was not universal at one point in time across all Europe, but originally it tended to be done for those who were enfeoffed or granted some position of significant authority. Not all who were counted among the knightly class received this distinction.

Any how, I could believe in both armour and weapons being specialized (lighter, less complete, possibly ornate, etc) for traveling, banquet/ parade, and other non combat situations, even in 12th-13th century time period.

[Peter Bosman]

[Jared Smith]

The sword descriptions for Albion's Theign and Yeoman tend to touch on these points. Technically the yeoman are "free men", and were regarded very differently than serfs in 11th - 12th century era. In regions like Germany, when Frederick I recruited serfs as bondsmen-knights, they became associated with his mesnie, enjoyed higher status, often were given hereditary financial benefits, and eventually elevated into a privileged cast. However, shortly after this the feudal system had outgrown economic feasibility, professional armies were the norm, and it is certain that many with no special status all across Europe also possessed swords.

I figure the knight errant could sneak around incognito, but would also possess irrefutable proof of his station in the event of capture / ransom. In that day, men at arms would probably have been able to recognize such an individual, if close up, by the quality of his horse and possessions, and his bearing.

[Peter Bosman]

[Jared Smith]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Oh, I would add that not wearing armour most of the time does not mean not having the armour close at hand and ready to put on with help from a page in personal baggage at a moments notice: I would assume a Knight and his arms and armour would rarely be far apart

In a war situation one might not wear any armour or very little of it if one could armour up quickly when battle seemed imminent. Having some armed retainers close by to buy time while getting ready being helpful.

For a raid or cheveauché wearing less than full armour might be preferable.

Some wearing of full armour for purely social status reasons also being a possibility as Peter has mentioned.

[Jared Smith]

Yes... Jean!
I was wandering just how the knight errant hid his baggage train, esquire, armour, two spare mounts, etc.! Regardless, the minnesigners of the late 12th and early 13th century composed numerous works centered around the knight errant wandering through foreign lands, unknown and unrecognized (even sometimes presumed dead by his relatives.) I figure there could have been some basis in reality behind the popular theme.

Jean,
please provide a definition of "cheveauché." It is not readily available in common English. Since it is closer to your native language I think it better if you give the explanation. I have both Canadian and French friends, but figure you own this one.

[Gordon Frye]

Jared;

A "cheveauché" is quite literally a cavalry raid. It was the norm for most of the campaigns of the Hundred Years War, which was more marked by small scale warfare than the major battles we prefer to read about. Of note is that Robert E. Lee described the cavalry raids of JEB Stuart as "cheveauché's" as late as the 1860's. Which indeed they were.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Jared Smith]

I would call these things a "skirmish". I am not sure how antiquated my own terminology might be, but, a large number of deaths of knights can be attributed to such conflicts. The strategy of 12th -13tth century melee tournament seems to me to be geared towards this type of engagement.

[Randall Moffett]

Okay. There are a few things I'd recommend. one is reading Christine de Pisan's work on war. She mentioned scouting, foraging etc. This things by theory would be supported by an armoured group at the very least. The idea of specialized scouts is not 100% medieval. Armoured men at arms often were scouts and would forage as well. We also have many chronicles, Froissart comes to mind of armoured men on their raids and such. So if one was going to war or in a war zone very unlikely to be totally unarmed in any way. Perhaps the helmet and gaunts off but my guess is substabcial armour was worn. If they were in a less threatened site perhaps, in lands that were supposed to be taken, they would have a good deal of their armour off but it would still be at hand as has been said before in this post.

In day to day travel it is possible that these men did not bring armour about but that is not to say they wore no armour. There are accounts of nobles warring and making suprise attacks on unarmoured me so it happens but there are also the same records with stories finding the party is armoured to some degree. It likely depends on who the knihgt/lord is.

There are a whole series of very fine brigs and mail shirts for civic protection that still exist. The RA has a fine display on this with many of them. These concealed armours were a pretty important garments as you never knew when soneone would go after you intentionally or otherwise. The fines in all the English towns I have studied have a huge number of fines for fighting, with swords, poleaxes etc. so do not let these silly you cannot carry a sword around town laws confuse you. People did this and the law only applied if someone wished to impose it, which seems more likely to occure after you use it.

William Wallace was not silly. Nor did he galavant around without armour I am guessing anywhere as other knights would not. This is hollywood. There are not alot of sources on Wallace but he was born into the knightly class. He would have been arrayed and acted so for war. He may have effected some tactics that were somewhat considered 'tricks' and therefore a bit less acceptable by other knights but he was going up against a super power, it likely is all he could do at times. He was clever, slippery and tricky but he was also good enough to stop an english army in the field a farily rare occurance most of the time in Scotland.

My guess is raiding, skirmishes and sieges make up about 95%-98% if not more of medieval battles so this would be where a soldier spent his fighting time. REally sitting around and walking likely took up most of his time.

RPM

[Peter Bosman]