[Keith Kempenich]

Greetings,

I am working on a project examining the equipment and combat style of the Uccello 'Battle of San Romano' paintings (c. 1440) and I realized I have an issue with source material. The lances in the painting are clearly what I (and others) would call tournament lances, yet I find I have no way of substantiating that with any real scholarship. Same with other features of the painting (armour, helm crests, etc) - things I have taken for granted because of a long history of casual scholarship and enthusiasm I now need to back up in a very real academic sense.

I am wondering if anyone has any suggested sources on these kinds of things that they know off hand that might be useful (beyond what my own searches are finding). Thanks!

[Pieter B.]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

I'm with Pieter, Keith. I've never noticed anything about the scenes in the San Romano paintings that doesn't suggest fully-functional war gear. What kind of research are you using the paintings for, and what is your hypothesis? In my opinion the San Romano scenes should have virtually no connection to research regarding 15th-century tournaments because they are apparently depicting very realistic battle sequences. If that is what you're attempting to prove, though, then any of the decent books relating to 15th century armament should serve you well to back up arguments about the realism suggested by the paintings.

-Gregory

[Keith Kempenich]

The lances nearly match an example in the Royal Armouries tentatively attributed to Henry VIII. The presence of helm crests also suggests a tournament to me. Further, couched lances were not used in that fashion in war, save for in the crusades (this is an issue worth reading the historiography on as it is long and complex, but I find myself convinced by David Bachrach, my advisor, that argues this point). I am open to changing my position, and you bring up good points, but I presently hypothesize that Uccello had probably personally seen tournaments, given his reasonable, but not wholly correct, understanding of armor. His details are technically correct, but the helm crests, use of couched lances and lances that match known tourney examples make me think that, not actual warfare, was his inspiration. It is a gut reaction to the images, but hence the need for research to decide where Uccello was getting his ideas about how war was conducted and the kinds of equipment used.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Keith,

I'm not sure if any proper research has been conducted as to whether or not Italians used helmet crests in battle during the course of the fifteenth century. With a lack of other source material it's hard to say... However, it's important to consider that recognition was still necessary on the field of battle, perhaps even more so than in a tournament, from a purely practical point of view. In a time after the use of shields and surcoats displaying heraldic devices, it's certainly possible that some people decided to take up the use of crests in their stead as a way to communicate their position on the battlefield.

Also, what form of lance couching do you not consider to have been used in battle? What contemporary evidence supports this proposed theory? I am not past suspecting that some of the motions made by Uccello's warriors are unrealistic - after a brief check it seems that he never had any combat experience in his life, after all. Still, the poses he suggests for his fighting men were common enough in contemporary art, which detracts from the suggestion that they were using a style specific to tournaments. Here's a nearly contemporary piece from the Jena Codex, which is a very good example:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Husit%C3%A9_-_Jensk%C3%BD_kodex.jpg

He also depicts many warlike details in the Battle of San Romano, including infantrymen wielding glaives and crossbows, dead bodies upon the ground, and men-at-arms attempting to bash each other in the head with war hammers.

Most importantly, the chaos of the scene is a far cry from a fifteenth century tournament. The general melee had all but disappeared by that point in time, and the systematic program of the individual tilt was the highlight of any event. Bohorts were still held, but I do not know how common they were in Italy, and they certainly would not have involved lances.

Speaking of lances, there's still nothing to suggest that these are tournament lances rather than lances of war. Comparing them to a surviving inventory that post-dates the painting by nearly a century is not a good way of looking at things. One needs to investigate other martial paintings and (on the slight possibility) surviving inventories from that time. As far as I'm aware, lances depicted in use by men-at-arms during the 15th century bears some resemblance to those that Uccello painted. Many others also look like "straight" shafts, but that does not mean that their is either form is mutually exclusive for the use in combat or tournaments. As examples, take Durer's famous knight, who is clearly a martial character, or the mounted men-at-arms in the painting linked above - many other painted martial scenes depict heavy lances of this sort.

However, my personal bottom-line is that it's not reasonable to scrutinize the decisive influences of a several-hundred year old painting. There was so much variation on martial depictions, as well as on the real battlefields of Europe, that it is virtually impossible to distinguish which factors come down to the fallibility of the artist's background knowledge of his subject, artistic conventions of the day, actual military or formal armament, etc, etc... I tried to rip apart a couple of medieval paintings in art history class and the only thing I learned was how futile such endeavors are!

Good luck to you, Keith!

-Gregory

(p.s. This was written right after waking up and before coffee, so please excuse any oddities in the text above.)

[Keith Kempenich]

I only have a moment, so I must be brief.

The images I've found of 15th C tourneys actually are very similar to the Uccello paintings. The paintings do have some war-like qualities, as you rightly point out, but that is unconvincing evidence that Uccello actually had any idea of what he was depicting. One of the points of research I need to do is looking into how troops were deployed in 15th C Italy, but I suspect the hodgepodge we see in Uccello is not accurate, with infantry, cavalry and crossbowmen all intermingling. As for couched lances, very quickly, they're ineffective against infantry and cavalry alike. Horses don't like running into dense walls of pointy things and charging against a cavalryman is a good way to get your horse killed underneath you. Much of the historiography here is about earlier medieval combat, but there is little reason to think that it would have been employed later.

When it comes to a lot of these details, I am reticent to rely heavily on artistic sources because they all have the same problem (with the exception, I think, of tournaments, which an artist could reasonably have been party to). I need more written sources on the matter, especially on the use of lances. As a whole, the project is turning out to be considerably more research than I was intending... Boy, I wish we could chat on the phone, Gregory, you always have terrific points.

[Pieter B.]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Keith,

What makes you (or Dr. Bachrach) think that couched lances are ineffective against cavalry or infantry in combat? The early tournament arose specifically to train men how to properly use such a technique in close-quarters combat, and throughout the period of the crusades we hear of cavalry effectively charging targets again and again with couched lances using coherent movements en masse. I would refer you to my recent article in Medieval Warfare magazine (forgot which issue) dealing with the eyewitness Arabic literature that attests to the effectiveness and diversity of the use of couched lances during the crusades.

If the assumption is that heavier armour in the later medieval period would deny the utility of the couched lance, I ask which sort of weapon provides more thrusting power than a heavy lance bearing down on someone in the hands of a skilled man charging on the back of a horse? I reckon it would produce as many joules of energy as any other weapon available to late medieval armies - and it certainly produces more energy than a lance being wielded overhand! If a properly aimed hollow and blunted lance for use in tournaments could literally knock a man off of his horse, what could a solid and sharpened one accomplish? If a static man on foot could pierce heavy armour with a spiked implement, how could one imagine that a couched lance could not have the same effectiveness?

Furthermore, as Pieter pointed out, there are literally hundreds of surviving cuirasses configured for military use that include lance rests - many of these are munitions-grade armour of the sixteenth century that was undeniably meant for military use (like many in the Zeughaus armoury in Graz). There are also various and detailed paintings that depict men wearing cuirasses with lance rests, such as the Battle of Orsha (1514):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Krell_Battle_of_Orsha_(detail)_34.jpg

By way of comparison, there is also period art and military equipment that suggests the use of spears rather than lances from horseback, often in conjunction with shields. The spear was associated with light cavalry - like the famous Spanish jinetes - which became more prominent in armies as the sixteenth century progressed into the modern age. Here's an English depiction from 1581 that presents a good example of light cavalry with spears:

http://warfare.altervista.org/Renaissance/07_Irish_battle.jpg

However, from paintings to muster rolls to armament, there was always a clear distinction between heavy cavalry, which fought in the traditional manner with lances as the French gendarmes did (click the name), and light cavalry that could be armed in a variety of ways.

As for horses, well, they don't particularly like charging at anything, but they were bred and trained to do so by men for generation upon generation throughout the medieval period. To argue about the nature of horses is a moot point if we consider all of the period literature that tells of how specialized and valuable horses of war were. To think that they could maintain their nerves at all in combat but somehow not face up to lances is a vague and unsubstantiated argument.

Most critically, what evidence beyond conjecture can be produced from the late middle ages to suggest that the tradition of couching lances changed at all during that time? What advantage does thrusting with a lance during a charge have over couching in a physical sense, and what contemporary testimony is there to recommend that such a change actually occurred? The theory that couched lances were ineffective and obsolete in late medieval combat goes against a corpus of period art, literature and surviving armament, and a long tradition of modern historiography has substantiated the fundamental role of the couched lance in late medieval combat.

Finally, and as a bit of an aside at this point... As for Uccello mixing up all of the types of troops on the battlefield, I do not blame him! His canvases were not made of unlimited space. With what space he had to work with, he shows a great diversity of scenery in his triptych of the Battle of San Romano, and it is every bit as reflective of real combat as any other contemporary depictions. It is certainly not perfect, but it is better than almost all others - especially those silly French chronicles. Cheers!

-Gregory

[Sean Manning]

The names Steve Muhlberger (knightly culture) and Noel Fallows (skills and equipment) come offhand to mind. I don't know whether Toby Capwell has published much of his research on jousting equipment, but there is a great deal of knowledge on the hard drives and in the sketchbooks of the "jousting as historical recreation" community. If you want to test the hypothesis that couched lances were not used in battle in Italy in the fifteenth century you will need to read a lot of French and Latin and Italian of course (but you know, practice in any one of those languages reinforces the others, so its not as scary as it sounds).

[Keith Kempenich]

Oof, lot to respond to here! I'll do what I can. However, I have pulled back a bit on the scope of the project and will probably just be focusing on the lances in the Uccello paintings and maybe the armour as well if I have the time. The piece I am writing will be more descriptive as an art history piece rather than theoretical as a strict history essay. My ignorance of 15th century warfare in Italy is too great to be rectified in a short time. Your excellent points, Gregory, reveal that I have much to learn there and cannot apply earlier medieval phenomena to the early renaissance. Perhaps charges were used to greater effect later? I don't know one way or another.

Anyway, apart from some great points of argument from you all, what I would request is the source materials you're referencing (not because I disbelieve you, but because I want to follow up and discuss with Bachrach, etc.). Gregory - you're 100% right about the couched lance in the crusades; Usama Ibn Munqid is a terrific read for that and other bizarre and hilarious topics. But the light cavalry of the Saraces were a very different opponent than a typical heavy cavalryman in the West at the time. But in European warfare, I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of "mounted shock combat." We read too often of miles dismounting to fight to believe that the tactic was essential, and if tourneys were so critical, we wouldn't read of them so often being banned, by secular leaders like Edward I, not simply condemned by the church. Again, with regards to the early renaissance, I am ignorant one way or another, though you all make a strong case.

Pieter, good points about the crests. About the lances, though, that is the kind of information that I already know and take for granted, but I realized (see my first post again) that I have no sources to actually cite regarding that info. The use of coronal lance heads is pretty evident, but some of the other details I picked up over the years without a solid academic source to reference now. That was my original reason for posting, after all.

Sean, the Latin is in the works but the French and Italian are taking a backseat to German for now. This is a one-off project, not my main area of interest. My Master's thesis is going to be on comparing the wound pathologies shown in art and heroic literature of the crusades era, possibly arguing for a reason for the ridiculous wounds (not sure yet, though).

Thanks guys, terrific discussion!

[Mark Lewis]

I recently came across this ebook where Chris Dobson lays out an argument for the Paris panel (of Micheletto Attendolo) not being originally part of the San Romano series, but being part of a separate commission which was only later associated with the other panels when displayed by Lorenzo de Medici. I found it to be a very interesting read, even if one might disagree with his final conclusion.
http://www.chrisdobson.net/pdfs/San-Romano-Preview.pdf

[Pieter B.]

[Sean Manning]

[Mark Griffin]

HI all, an interersting discussion.

You need to differentiate a crest from a panche for starters. One is a physical representation of a device and usually carries some significance in relation to the wearer or event. The other is decorative and the another example of conspicuous display of wealth and status. I've always taken the San Romano to be the latter, I doubt any of what the knights are wearing on their helms could easily identify them.

2nd, the Henry VIII/Brandon lances in the RA collection might well be 'bordenasse' or bearing lances. They have never had any serious work done on them so they are not much use for drawing any conclusions from. I've looked at them as close up as is possible and there is all sorts of weird stuff going on with them.

On how lances are used in the late 15th cent to defeat an opponent, if you do not couch them and use the arret/graper system I very much doubt you will do damage to anyone apart from yourself. If you have two forces colliding the shock and damage will be taken along the path of least resistance to the weakest point. If your lance is not connected properly to the harness you'll get your wrist, elbow or shoulder wrenched from the shock. Been there, done that!

To penetrate a harness with a sharp lance is very difficult, just poking at them without couching and joining the tip of the lance to the energy of the horse and rider will be ineffective. Fine if your adversary is in mail but for a harness, you cannot just couch the lance and poke your adversary, that way pain and failure lies.

Sadly nobody has yet done a study on the corpus of lances and to be honest there are so few and so varied that again, conclusions might be problematic. There are however a lot of written refs, Fallows etc has already been cited above.

[Sean Manning]

Thanks Mark! Other than Dr. Capwell (who does not post much) and Gordon “Rittermeister” Frye (who is most interested in the 16th century) you are the horsiest forum member whom I can think of.

Dr. Capwell's new book cites some research into the appearance of the heavy lance at the end of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth century, and the appearance of special words like "lancegay" or "javelin" to refer to lances with a more versatile design.