| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Daniel Staberg
|
 Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Ome major advantage the 15th Century men-at-arms would posses in a mounted clash is the lance rest or arrete which allows them to handle a longer lance and to deliver a more powerfull blow upon impact. Indeed much of the development of the Miliansese style white hanress from the early 15th Century onwards can be seen as a counter move to the increase performance the lance rest gave the lancer.
|
|
  |
 |
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: | | ... The knightly surcoat of the 13th century, depending on how long it was cut, might hamper the knight's movements... |
I've got a just below below knee length surcote, wich has never hampered me in any way; The surcote would need to be practically ancle length for this to become a issue.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
I think it'd be about the same on foot, though probably not as dramatic. In individual combat, skill would be the most important factor, but the guy in plate would have the advantage. If the guy in plate had a two-handed weapon, and the guy in mail had a sword and shield, then the plated warrior's advantage would increase. I think 15th-century men-at-arms, wearing full harness and wielding polearms, would have little to fear from 13th-century knights.
|
Remember that in one on one combat, the killing blow is usually dealt with a dagger anyhow; The 13th cent knight would probably close and try to topple his opponent right away, place his shield in the other guy's armpit, and stab him.
The greatest difference in efficiency against men at arms, would probably be what kind of infantry they are facing; Against pikemen, the 13th cent kingts are toast. Against a less organized enemy with shorter spears, the difference wouldn't be that great; Both kinds of knight would have to be pulled from the horse and stabbed to death.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
  |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Remember that in one on one combat, the killing blow is usually dealt with a dagger anyhow; |
I don't know about that. There are many ways a pollaxe could incapacitate a man in plate, and many more against a man in mail.
| Quote: | | The 13th cent knight would probably close and try to topple his opponent right away, place his shield in the other guy's armpit, and stab him. |
Not the easiest thing to pull off, but things would be more even in a grapple.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a thought: In relationship to a 15th or 16th century Gendarme an 11th to 13th century Knight is more like medium cavalry than heavy cavalry.
Although not historically relevant ( Could be wrong here ) the two types of armaments could complement each other either as having different weights of heavy cavalry for different missions or having the later Knight arming down by using mostly maille for certain mission types or vary their armour depending on what kind of foe faced ! More hypothetical tactical advantages of each armour type than historical use ?
Used in a non traditional way the maille armed Knights could be uses as skirmishers or even be dual equipped as heavy horse archers ? I think the Byzantines had their heavy cavalry use bows in at least a limited way and as standard equipment. ( Not true light horse archers in the Mongol way maybe. )
OOOOPS: I am drifting a bit off topic as far as Knights in maille versus Knights in plate in a fight against each other.
In isolation and in a duel between each I don't think the armour would be as critical as skill of each and what weapons we allow the one in maille to use: If the maille clad Knight was armed with a mace, warhammer or flail he would have a much better chance that with a typical types X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV or XV one handed sword.
The use of a spear, Danish axe or pollaxe by the maille clad Knight should give even better offensive power but at the cost of not using the shield at all or only in a very limited way if slung over the shoulders on a guige ? ( Just speculating.  Not saying this is a fact, but curious what others think of the ideas. )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all!
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
If the maille clad Knight was armed with a mace, warhammer or flail he would have a much better chance that with a typical types X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV or XV one handed sword. |
Jean,
I talked a bit about this in one of my earlier posts; I think a 13th century knight armed with a typical slashing sword of the period would be at a disadvantage. Yes, a mace, flail, or war hammer, or even one-handed axe, may equal the odds a bit. I think if the 15th century knight was armed with a poleaxe, a very versatile weapon, he might have a distinct advantage. Arm both with single-handed swords, and it might equal things out a bit!
| Elling Polden wrote: |
I've got a just below below knee length surcote, wich has never hampered me in any way; The surcote would need to be practically ancle length for this to become a issue. |
Elling,
It would certainly depend on the cut of the surcoat. Some were quite long, and quite voluminous around the hem (look at some of the surcoats shown on the knightly effigies and brasses). There were reasons the front was cut short in the 14th century, and then the whole hem cut short a bit later, other than just fashion. (I think I read somewhere that knights would tuck the front ends of long surcoats up under their belts to fight on foot, but I can't remember where; the negative side of having so many books!) Still, some were longer and more voluminous than others. A shorter, less "bulky" surcoat would certainly interfere less with movement. Of course, the longer surcoat was probably worn more on horseback. (It would have been worn during the period when knights tended to fight mounted more than they fought dismounted.) I have read that Sir John Chandos was killed in battle after he tripped over his long surcoat, but I will have to find my source later (I can't remember where I read it, I'll try to find it).
| Benjamin H. Abbot wrote: |
That's very interesting. What treatise is that from? |
Benjamin,
I'm not taking it from the primary source, but from a couple secondary sources by authors who have studied the subject. The description of "how to arm a knight" from the treatise is mentioned in both Tournaments by Richard Barber and Juliet Barker, and Warrior Series 18: Knight of Outremer 1187-1344 AD by David Nicolle. Apparently, Nicolle didn't list it in his bibliography (perhaps he is taking the information from a secondary source as well; he doesn't even mention it's from a treatise), but Barker and Barber did use endnotes. They list British Library MS Additional 46919 fo. 86v-87r as their source. I have no idea if this treatise has either an "official" or "common" name, Barker and Barber say only that it's an early fourteenth armorial treatise, a Latin treatise on how to arm a knight.
I actually went to the British Library website and found the description of this particular manuscript. It does indeed contain notes about a knights equipment. Here's the section from the British Library site:
| British Library wrote: |
(31) Notes on (i) Different species of hawks. Beg. 'Falcones dici possunt'.
Printed by Meyer, Romania, xiii, p. 529. f. 86b;- (ii) Knights' equipment.
Heading: 'Modus armandi milites ad torneamentum'. Beg. 'Primo fit ignis'.
Printed by Meyer, ibid., p. 530. ff. 86b-87. |
(I added the boldface print.)
I hope this helped!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
Last edited by Richard Fay on Fri 10 Nov, 2006 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
I've found the reference to the death of Sir John Chandos that claims he tripped on his long surcoat. I actually found it in two of my books.
The first is from Richard Barber's Edward, Prince of Wales and Aquitaine: A Biography of the Black Prince.
| Richard Barber wrote: |
At Lussac-les-Chateaux he came upon the enemy, while the other part of his company, who were also eager to attack the raiders, were still a little way off. Chandos's men dismounted and attacked, but as Chandos moved forward, encumbered by an over-long surcoat embroidered with his arms, he slipped and fell on the frosty ground. A French squire stabbed him in the face with a dagger; he wore no vizor, and was blind in one eye, so failed to avoid the blow. He fell to the ground, while the battle raged around him. The combined English forces were victorious, and hastened to get Chandos to a near-by castle, but he died the next day. Such, in bare outline, is Froissart's account of Chados's death, embellished by many romantic details and far from certain in its main points. |
Richard Barber lists sources- Prince at Cognac: Marvaud I, 155; Guinodie I, 382; Archives Vienne 2HI/92. Froissart, VII, pp. 199-204.
If Barber is using Froissart, the details of Chandos's death may be "romantically embellished", but that's how the chronicler said the knight died.
Here's another, slightly different version, from Stephen Turnbull's The Book of the Medieval Knight. I'm not sure of the source Turnbull is using, and it's certainly not a "primary" source, but it has some parallels to Barber's account.
| Stephen Turnbull wrote: |
Late in 1369 Sir John Chandos, gallantly defending Aquitaine, attempted an ambush of a party of French soldiers. The morning was cold, the ground frozen solid. Since losing an eye in a hunting accident five years previously Chandos had never worn a visor. Descending from his horse to assist a fallen squire who was being attacked by a group of Frenchmen, his foot caught in the long white armour robe that he was wearing against the cold. Slipping on the icy ground, he was recognized and swiftly siezed. The point of a spear was thrust into the open helmet, ending the life of the architect of Poitiers and Auray. |
(I added the bold in both quotes.)
In A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, Barbara W. Tuchman mentions Chandos's death, but nothing about tripping on a surcoat. She just says that he marched out "with his banner before him and his company about him, his coat-of-arms upon him...and his sword in his hand" and slipped on the dewy ground. She does have an interesting quote from his men gathered around his dead body.
| Barbara Tuchman wrote: |
"Ah, Sir John Chandos, flowre of chivalry, unhappily was forged the glaive that thus wounded you and brought you in parell of dethe!" |
Period weapon terms were often indistinct, and a glaive could be a spear, or a form of dagger (or even a sword according to some other sources describing Chandos's death).
So, Chandos may have died becuase he tripped on his surcoat. Apparently, a surcoat could impede movement.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
Last edited by Richard Fay on Fri 10 Nov, 2006 9:18 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
I've found the reference to knights tucking their long surcoats up into their belts to fight on foot. It's in Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Miles Paddock, in the chapter "The Fourteenth Century: The Parfait Gentil Knight".
| John Miles Paddock wrote: |
At the very beginning of the (14th) century the knight still wore a surcoat or flowing gown over his armour, which probably provided a hindrance while fighting on foot, as it is often depicted tucked up onto the belt. Later, the front of the gown was shortened to expose the bottom of the coat of plates. |
The surcoat could vary in length, and could certainly be long enough to hinder movement. Here's a description of the various lengths of surcoat from John Hewitt's Ancient Armour & Weapons (an old source, but still good when dealing with things depicted in period art, as long as they aren't open to too much interpretation):
| John Hewitt wrote: |
The sleeveless surcoat occurs of various lengths, sometimes scarcely covering the hauberk, sometimes reaching to the heels. Both the short and the long are seen throughout the (13th) century. The long appear on the royal seals noticed above (King John of England, the dauphin Louis, and Alexander the Second of Scotland). And on the seal of De Quinci, circa 1250; on the sculpture from Haseley, c. 1250; on the brass of D'Aubernoun, 1277; on the effigies at Ash and Norton, of the close of the century; and on the statues of De Vere and Crouchback.
The shorter surcoat occurs on the effigy of Longuespee, d. 1226; the knight at Whitworth, c. 1250; the figures fom the Painted Chamber and the "Lives of the Two Offas"; the knight at Florence, 1289; (and) De Valence in Westminster Abbey... |
Here's more about the varying lengths of surcoats, this time from Christopher Gravett's Warrior 58: English Medieval Knight 1300-1400:
| Christopher Gravett wrote: |
Most knights wore a surcoat...it varied in length from the ankles to just above the knees (rare)...by about 1330 the surcoat became shorter at the front until it was cut off horizontally at the thighs |
So surcoats could definitely vary in length, and some reached the ankles. Longer ones could be a hindrance to movement; that's probably one of the reasons the surcoat was cut short in the front when English knights began to fight on foot more often! So the 13th century knight may be hindered on foot by his surcoat, if it's long, and if it's not tucked up into his belt! (I'll have to look around and see if I can come up with period images that show the surcoat tucked onto the belt; although I have no real reason to doubt Paddock's statement in Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight.)
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Nov, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
I was just going to call it a night when I stumbled across another reference to surcoats tucked under sword belts and a period image apparently showing surcoats tucked up in just such a way (well, at least a description and drawing from a manuscript image). I found this in Ewart Oakeshott's The Archaeology of Weapons: Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry. Here's what the author said about the surcoat:
| Ewart Oakeshott wrote: |
The cut of it varied, not so much by period as by preference, for we find very long ones and very short ones, with sleeves or without, in use throughout the thirteenth century. The illustration on p. 198 (fig. 85) from a manuscript of the early fourteenth century shows two knights fighting on foot in long surcoats, which they have tucked up under their sword-belts in order to shorten them. This method of holding a long surcoat up out of the way when fighting is often shown... |
Oakeshott shows a drawing of the manuscript image as his figure 85. It's not entirely clear that the surcoats are tucked into the belt in his drawing, but they certainly could be. The caption states that it's from the early fourteenth century Romance of Lancelot de Lac.
Apparently, knights did feel that the surcoat could hinder movement, since they did tuck the front under their belts when fighting on foot!
Sorry if I seem like I'm repeating myself, it's late, and I really should get some rest!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Nov, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
The length of sucrotes vary with the tunic lengths of their current period; in the 14th cent, tuncics where shorter than in the 13th, so sucotes where shorter as well.
Noblemen wore long tunics, reaching to the ancle. These ARE a hinderance, and I did on occation trip in the hem when i was fighting in them, back in my foolsih days.
When fighting with sword and buckler, these are stuffed into the belt, left to right, right to left. This can be seen in both I33 and Codex Manesse;
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/we...d=PAGE0376
However, with a surcoat as short as those shown in for instance maciwski and mansesse, this would not be a problem.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kelly
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Nov, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: piercing the maille |
|
|
Hi guys, this is my first post here so bear with me.
If the two knights, one in maille harness and one in plate harness were to face each other in a judicial duel, armed with longsword and rondel dagger, I would think the knight in plate would have the distinct advantage. My reasoning behind this is that the mailled knight would need to concentrate on the very limited openings in the plate, ie. visor slit, armpits, groin and joints whereas the plate armored knight could find a viable target anywhere upon mailled knight's body and pierce the links by half-swording or grappling with the rondel.
-Rob
Last edited by Rob Kelly on Sat 11 Nov, 2006 11:30 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
David Lohnes
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Nov, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've followed this thread with some interest, particularly because of the anecdotes from various posters about their own experiences in various kinds of armor.
I'm new to all of this, but I think another important factor not to be overlooked would be the level of armor protection on the steed. A knight riding an armored mount would, I think, have a very distinct advantage. I've just picked up a book from the library (Bennett, et al., Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World) that emphasizes the vulnerability of a knight's mount.
The point was especially brought home to me in the discussion of almogavar's, a kind of unarmored light infantryman from Spain that I'd never heard of.
| Quote: | | Almogavars wore an open-work iron helmet, a sleeveless sheepskin jacket, . . . a tunic . . . and light but tough sandals. They carried a short spear, . . . javelins that could pierce armour and a . . . colltell, . . . which has been reconstructed as a combination of knife and butcher's cleaver. (33) |
| Quote: | | The Catalan chronicler Ramon Muntaner describes an individual combat between a almogavar and a French knight during the Siciliy campain [ca. 1300]. As the horseman charged, the almogavar, showing immense bravery, stood his ground. He buried his heavy javelin into the horse's chest, bringing down the knight, who was then at the mercy of the infantryman's butcher's blade. (32) |
This book has opened my eyes a little bit. It has convinced me that the primary advantage of mounted knights, regardless of armor type, was the "shock value" of the charge. Unless the enemy was real disciplined, knights could win just by driving them off the field. But against archers or firm infantry with pole-arms, mounted knights were vulnerable because their mounts were vulnerable. I never had really thought about that. Neither had I realized how much mounted forces were dependent upon infantry to protect them and their mounts. (cf. the book's discussion on Richard the Lionheart and the Battle of Arsuf.)
So it seems to me that the answer to the larger question depends almost entirely on the specific situation. Melee? Tournament? One-on-one on foot? Weapons? Terrain? Temperature? If it was one-on-one on muddy ground and raining, which would you rather be: the knight on foot with full plate harness and longsword or the almogavar?[/i]
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even in the mud, I'd still like to have the harness in a one on one fight. After all, your opponent would still have to come to you; A javelin wouldn't be all that scary when wearing a maximillian harness.
However, heavy armour reduces mobility on foot; you can still run, but not quite as fast or as long. In a skirmish, where you have to move about a lot while on foot, this might be a disadvantage. However, it is still prefereable to being completely unarmoured.
Longswords are not terribly efficient skirmish weapons, either. They have to short reach for effectively supporting your fellows, and are limited to defending against one opponent at a time.
However, the primary weapon of a late medevial heavy infantryman would be a halberd or polaxe. Here he is at an advantage, because these weapons have better anti-armour performance than the one or two handed spear used by the high medevial heavy inf, in scattered formations; In large, thight formations the spear, in the form of pikes, is still the king.
In such a faceof, the late medevial representatives would take less cassualties because of their better armour, and thus win...
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all!
| Elling Polden wrote: |
The length of sucrotes vary with the tunic lengths of their current period; in the 14th cent, tuncics where shorter than in the 13th, so sucotes where shorter as well. |
Elling,
I must disagree with your general statement regarding surcoat lengths. As I already pointed out with my quotes from Hewitt's Ancient Armour and Weapons and Oakeshott's Archaeology of Weapons, the length of the surcoat in the 13th century varied; both long and short examples can be seen in period artwork throughout the century. The length of the hem didn't seem to follow period or regional fashion so much as personal taste, at least in the 13th century.
I definitely agree that the shortening of the surcoat in the 14th century seemed to follow civilian fashion, since the tunic did become rather short, even ridiculously short at times. However, there could also be a practical aspect to the shortening of the surcoat outside of fashion; the 14th century was a time that knights, especially in England, began to fight on foot more often. A shortened surcoat was more practical for fighting on foot.
The garment now called a "cyclas" that was worn over armour briefly in the early 14th century (for a spread of ten to twenty years) seems to be a compromise between the fashion of wearing long skirts with the surcoat and shortening the skirts in front so it won't impede fighting on foot. It could have just been a fashion, but it's still interesting that they cut the front short, but left the skirt long in back. It was followed by a surcoat cut short in both front and back, and then by the more form-fitting and even shorter jupon.
I wonder about the claims that John Chandos was killed because he tripped on the hem of his long surcoat; Chandos died in 1369. Long surcoats had definitely fallen out of fashion by then. Of course, Chados's military career began in 1337; he was getting a bit old by 1369. Perhaps he started to wear old-fashioned garments due to a feeling of nostalgia. Maybe the garment was more of a robe or tunic. Or, maybe Froissart just imagined the whole scene. If he did, why would he have Chandos in an old-fashioned surcoat?
I hope this made sense!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: |
I wonder about the claims that John Chandos was killed because he tripped on the hem of his long surcoat; Chandos died in 1369. Long surcoats had definitely fallen out of fashion by then. Of course, Chados's military career began in 1337; he was getting a bit old by 1369. Perhaps he started to wear old-fashioned garments due to a feeling of nostalgia. Maybe the garment was more of a robe or tunic. Or, maybe Froissart just imagined the whole scene. If he did, why would he have Chandos in an old-fashioned surcoat?
I hope this made sense!
Stay safe! |
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/m...andos2.htm has Froissart's description., essentialy Sir John slips on the frosty ground, get's his legs tangled in the robe/Houpelande and gets a lance thrust in the face since he has not lowered the visor of his bascinet.
Froissart isn't the most reliable of sources due to his tendecy to embrioider his text with fictious details.
However if we assume that his account is correct the garment worn by Sir John is called a robe in the translation above, not a surcoat. Given that the fight took place on the night of December 31st 1369 and that the 14th Centiruy suffered some quite cold weather due to the effects of the "Little Ice Age" it's likely that Sir John was indeed wearing some sort of winner garment , probably a Houpelande, over his armour against the cold. Both written and pictorial sources refer to Houpelandes worn over armour from the 1350's onward. Given how hard it is to retain body heat while wearing plate armour in winter time I can well understand the choice of a full lenght garment.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
David,
good point but I do not think the Almogavars ever fought a knight in full plate as their eras do not coincide and I do not think thier weapons would have been as effective verse plate as they were on mail. They seem to have also been quite unafriad of suffering huge casualties in battle which would make them a feared force as well. I have found very little info on them except a few spanish articles. Anything anyone has would be helpful on them.
I would think the knight in full plate would have an advantage. Not the least because he suffers less from the impact. I imagine though this could go either way on unequal terrain as the swiss and other groups proved but the difference was mass numbers of lesser armed men, not one on one.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all!
Daniel,
Thanks for that link! That was interesting! Here's the excerpt from Froissart "The Death of Sir John Chandos", edited by Steve Muhlberger, Nipissing University:
| Froissart wrote: |
Sir John Chandos, who was a strong and bold knight, and cool in all his undertakings, had his banner advanced before him, surrounded by his men, with the scutcheon above his arms. He himself was dressed in a large robe which fell to the ground, blazoned with his arms on white sarcenet, argent, a pile gules; one on his breast, and the other on his back; so that he appeared resolved on some adventurous undertaking; and in this state, with sword in hand, he advanced on foot towards the enemy.
This morning there had been hoar-frost, which had made the ground slippery; so that as he marched he entangled his legs with his robe, which was of the longest, and made a stumble: during which time a squire, called James de St. Martin (a strong expert man), made a thrust at him with his lance, which hit him in the face, below the eye, between the nose and forehead. Sir John Chandos did not see the aim of the stroke, for he had lost the eye on that side five years ago, on the heaths of Bordeaux, at the chase of a stag: what added to this misfortune, sir John had not put down his vizor, so that in stumbling he bore upon the lance, and helped it to enter into him. The lance, which had bee struck from a strong arm, hit him so severely that it entered as far as the brain, and then the squire drew it back to him again. |
Turnbull called Chandos's garment a robe, but I don't believe he took his information directly from the source. Barber called it a surcoat, but that may be the way he translated it, or his translator translated it. I guess it could be called a surcoat since it was worn over armour, even if the term isn't completely technically correct for the time period. Turnbull did mention that Chandos wore the garment due to the cold, which Barber did not. However, it was apparently embroidered with Chandos's coat-of-arms, which Barber did mention, so it could be considered a "coat armour". Whatever the garment's true nature was, the length did play a role in Chandos tripping and subsequently being stabbed in the face. (Of course, here they call the killing weapon a lance; another example of medieval terms being translated into various modern terms-glaive, spear, sword, lance. I wonder what term was used in the original text?)
Here's the lament cried by Chandos's men. Note how it's similar to what Barbara Tucman wrote, but she calls the weapon a glaive ( again from Froissart "The Death of Sir John Chandos", edited by Steve Muhlberger, Nipissing University):
| Froissart wrote: |
These barons and knight of Poitou were struck with grief when they saw their seneschal, sir John Chandos, lying in so doleful a way, and not able to speak. They began grievously to lament his loss, saying, "Flower of knighthood! oh sir John Chandos! cursed be the forging of that lance which wounded thee, and which has thus endangered thy life." Those who were around the body most tenderly bewailed him, which he heard, and answered with groans, but could not articulate a word. They wrung their hands, and tore their hair, uttering cries and complaints, more especially those who belonged to his household. |
Here again is how Barbara Tuchman quoted Chandos's men (from Froissart?) in A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century:
| Barbara Tuchman wrote: |
"Ah, Sir John Chandos, flowre of chivalry, unhappily was forged the glaive that thus wounded you and brought you in parell of dethe!" |
I think Chandos's death (if we assume Froissart is correct about the details) is is a good example of how a long garment (robe, houpelande, or surcoat) could impede movement. A 13th century knight could trip on his equally long surcoat, unless it was a shorter example, or it was sensibly tucked into his belt!
I should also add that the 14th century coat armours (surcoat and jupon) did tend to be shorter than even the "short" form of 13th century surcoat. The extreme shortness, relatively speaking, of the later 14th century coat armours (jupon) was definitely influenced by the fashion of the day. Previously, I just wanted to point out that the length of the surcoat in the 13th century didn't necessarily follow any sort of trends in civilian fashion; they could vary from knee-length to ankle-length throughout the century! I just wanted to make sure I clarified my point!
Thanks again, Daniel! That was interesting! (Many of the books I read contained part of the details, but not everything.)
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: |
I wonder about the claims that John Chandos was killed because he tripped on the hem of his long surcoat; Chandos died in 1369. Long surcoats had definitely fallen out of fashion by then. Of course, Chados's military career began in 1337; he was getting a bit old by 1369. Perhaps he started to wear old-fashioned garments due to a feeling of nostalgia. Maybe the garment was more of a robe or tunic. Or, maybe Froissart just imagined the whole scene. If he did, why would he have Chandos in an old-fashioned surcoat?
|
It should be noted that a surcoat and a surcoat isn't always the same; The civilian surcote is different from the military one; It is quite posible that Chandos wore his civilian winter surcote, perhaps even one of the sleeved ones, if the purpose was to keep warm. A "regular" surcoat is often quite thin, made of light wool, silk or cotton (if in the Mediterranean area...)
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Elling,
Right! I should have specified long "military surcoats" (ones specifically made to be worn over armour) fell out of fashion by the mid to late 14th century. Since Froissart stated that the garment was worn due to the cold, it could definitely be a heavier civilian garment. Might it have been padded? (I believe some of the 14th century coat armours were padded, like that of the Black Prince.) If it had been padded, the additional weight might have contributed to it "encumbering" Chandos and tangling up his legs. (I know padded garments aren't terribly heavy, but something padded would weigh more than something without padding.) If the hem bore those outrageous dags often seen on some of these garments in that time period, that may also have contributed to the fact that it entangled Chandos's legs. Just a thought!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | David,
good point but I do not think the Almogavars ever fought a knight in full plate as their eras do not coincide and I do not think thier weapons would have been as effective verse plate as they were on mail. They seem to have also been quite unafriad of suffering huge casualties in battle which would make them a feared force as well. I have found very little info on them except a few spanish articles. Anything anyone has would be helpful on them.
I would think the knight in full plate would have an advantage. Not the least because he suffers less from the impact. I imagine though this could go either way on unequal terrain as the swiss and other groups proved but the difference was mass numbers of lesser armed men, not one on one.
RPM |
With lightly armed skirmishers a one on one would depend a lot on available space for manoeuvre: If the skirmisher can be assumed to be light in frame and probably a faster runner that the Knight, even when the Knight was not armoured ( civilian dress with only sword and buckler. ), the skirmisher could control the engagement distance and even run away if unsuccessful in doing any damage.
A skirmisher cornered with nowhere to run could be killed at leisure by the better armoured Knight who would just close with impunity.
In a battle between Knights and skirmishers a larger number of skirmishers could be like wolves surrounding a bear and exhaustion of the Knight(s) would be an important factor.
Oh, I would digress by saying that this would be a good time to mention the usefulness of combined arms: A small group of Knight ( On foot ) supported by a few archers would have a much better chance against an even larger number of skirmishers than my previous example i.e. it would take a much larger number of skirmishers to win at a much greater cost in casualties. The ideal small force would have it's Knights still on horseback and would have a small number of billmen or spear & shield equipped infantry to protect its archers behind a shield wall as the Knights attack but stay close enough to be of mutual support with it's infantry / archery force.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crispin Yingst
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Nov, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: Mail and plate |
|
|
|
Could it be possible that the surcoat would be made out of some kind of leather? It would help to soften the blows. Probably couldn't be cuir boilli though, if the surcoat is long (it would need to bend).
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic