Armor
Because he traveled on horseback, the mounted soldier could carry more armor than the dismounted soldier. Equipping the mounted warrior with effective armor, however, was extremely expensive. Cost, more than any other consideration, was the limiting factor regarding how much, and what type, of armor the horseman wore. Armor was relatively unchanged from the late Roman Empire to the beginning of the Middle Ages. The mounted warrior’s main armor was a thigh-length ring mail coat combined with a kite-shaped shield and iron helmet. Few men-at-arms wore more than this minimum equipment through the eleventh century. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the men-at-arms wore full mail armor, including leggings, arms and mittens, and a hood to fit under the helmet. By the end of the Middle Ages full suits of plate armor, supplemented by mail, were necessary. The typical cost for equipping a mounted warrior with armor in the eighth century was 48 solidi. In comparison, an average mare cost 3 solidi and an ox with horns was worth 2 solidi. The costs of equipment steadily increased throughout the period as horses and armor became even better adapted to the requirements of the mounted men-at-arms. Given these costs, not all men-at-arms were always completely equipped. 16 These costs also limited the number of vassals a nobleman could support and, by extension, the size of the mounted portion of any army.
Chain mail remained the standard armor of the mounted warrior until the Hundred Years War. Chain mail was usually worn as a long thigh-length coat called a hauberk. A hood, gloves, and leggings supplemented the coat. The warrior wore a padded tunic called a gambeson under the hauberk. It cushioned the impact of blows and protected the knight from the coarseness of the mail.17 The techniques of manufacturing chain mail were similar to those used to make mail for the cataphracti in the Roman period. Plate armor existed, but it was prohibitively expensive. A general change to plate armor did not occur until after the battle of Crécy, where combat revealed the vulnerability of mail to the longbow.
Helmets in the early Middle Ages were conical and not too different from those worn by the last of the Roman cavalry. The only face protection on these helmets, called spangenhelm, was a nasal to protect the nose. Spangenhelm figure prominently in the Bayeux Tapestry’s detailed depiction of the battle of Hastings. By the twelfth-century, iron helmets, called great helms, replaced the spangenhelm type. Great Helms gave complete protection to the head but severely restricted vision and were very heavy. A round bacinet helmet—which was lighter, provided full head protection, and often had a visor that raised to improve one’s vision—replaced the early simple design. The general adoption of the bacinet helmet during the fourteenth century relegated the great helm to specialized tournament equipment.18
Plate armor augmented chain mail beginning in the mid-fourteenth century as a direct response to the employment of the English longbow and the ease with which its arrows penetrated mail. The impact of this weapon on armor development was profound. The destruction of the French army at Crécy in 1346 announced the arrival of the longbow on the battlefield. Within ten years, plate armor, considered 75 percent effective at turning or stopping the arrow of the longbow, replaced mail.19
Under plate armor knights wore an arming doublet with patches of mail inter-woven at vulnerable points and included laces for attaching plate armor. A fully armored knight at the end of the Middle Ages wore 45 to 55 pounds of armor. The armor was hot, but the weight was evenly distributed over the entire body. A fully armored knight could run, lie down, and even turn cartwheels in his armor. Athletic knights boasted of vaulting directly into the saddle and climbing up the underside of scaling ladders while fully armored. Heat was the knight’s primary enemy—especially since the best campaign season was usually in the middle of summer. The armorers of Milan, who were considered the best in Europe, perfected plate armor production by the late fifteenth century. The quality of the metal they used, their technical craftsmanship, and the sheer artistry of their work was never equaled.20
Men-at-arms also carried a shield on the left arm. Early in the period these were large kite-shaped “Norman” shields. Armor improvements throughout the Medieval period allowed reducing the size of shield. By the fourteenth century, knights could maneuver their small shields to ward off blows rather than simply providing static protection. By the end of the fourteenth century, warriors discarded the shield altogether in favor of plate armor.
Training
Knights understood that training was the key to the success of the mounted warrior. Training took many forms. Basic training included practice and apprenticeship. Sports and competitions were a key component of advanced training. Incessant local warfare provided an opportunity for men-at-arms to hone their skills while gaining practical combat experience.
The enemies of the European knights, the Saracens and occasionally the Byzantines, considered the knights ferocious individual warriors. Anna Comnena, daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus, observed that the knights of the first crusade “have no military discipline nor strategic skills but as soon as they have to fight and do battle, a raging fury seizes their hearts and they become irresistible, common soldiers and leaders alike. They hurl themselves with invincible impetus into the midst of the enemy ranks as soon as the latter give a little ground.” Saracen emir Ousama ibn Munquidh made similar comments regarding the fighting prowess of western European knights in his autobiography: “Anyone who knows anything about the Franks has looked on them as beasts, outdoing all others in courage and warlike spirit, just as animals are our superiors when it comes to strength and aggression.”21
EUROPEAN HORSES AND HORSEMANSHIP
The horse was the knight’s most valuable military possession. War horses were extremely expensive. The cost of a war horse in the eighth century was approximately four times the cost of a standard mare. The costs continued to rise, and in 1297 the seven horses of Gerard de Moor, Lord of Wessegem, were worth 1,200 livres tournois. The other 21 horses of Gerard’s retinue had a total value of 1,307 livres tournois. The average cost of a war horse was around 89 livres tournois. An average march horse during this period cost 12 livres tournois meaning that the lord’s 7 mounts were worth the equivalent of 100 march horses, and the 28 mounts of his retinue were worth as much as 209 march horses.22 Gerard’s household was not unusual. The cost of mounts was part of the overall expense of waging war and contributed to the factors that limited the total number of men-at-arms. The value of the horse could also affect tactics. Men-at-arms and their leaders considered the horse’s protection as they developed their tactics. In the Crusades, it was not unusual for knights to disobey orders and not charge Saracen mounted archers because of the toll the arrows could take on the valuable mounts.
Horses
One result of the fall of the Roman Empire was the disintegration of controlled horse breeding in central Europe. Without controlled and systematic breeding programs the overall quality of European horses deteriorated rapidly. By the time the Franks began to raise armies centered on heavy cavalry, finding European horses of sufficient quality was a challenge. Controlled breeding from quality stock was a necessity for building a capable cavalry force. Reestablishing the European stock necessitated importing quality horses. The best source known to Europeans was the Islamic city-states of Spain.23
The battle of Poitiers in 778 put the Frankish cavalry of Charles Martel in direct contact with the Muslim cavalry of Spain. During the clash, the quality of the Islamic horses was immediately recognized by the Frankish leadership. The preferred horse of the early Medieval period in Europe quickly became the Spanish horse.24 The generic Spanish horse at this time would have been an amalgamation of central Asian breeds brought to Spain by the Visigoths, indigenous Spanish horses that were small mountain pony types, and Barbs brought to Spain by the Moors as part of the Islamic invasion of the eighth century.
Using Spanish horses as the model, Europeans reestablished horse breeding by the eleventh century. By the thirteenth century, European breeders had institutional
ized systems for strictly controlling all breeding between stallions and mares. In this period, most significant nobles and all European royalty had full-time stud operations that were supervised and carefully managed by long-term professionals whose reputations depended on their skill in producing superior war horses.25 Manning and maintaining this complex system, however, came at a significant price—a cost that was invariably transferred to the price of a mount.
The weight the horse was required to carry—rider, weapons, and armor—was not significantly different from Roman cavalry. So the horse types that existed were of sufficient size to be good cavalry mounts. Horses that were healthy, and between 14 and 15 hands tall, were the type commonly drafted into military service. The horses indicated on the Bayeux Tapestry appear to be just that—medium-size animals of 14 to 15 hands. Breeding to specific physical characteristics began in Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Even as breeding for characteristics developed, the evidence suggests that the optimum military characteristics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries required a horse that weighed approximately a thousand pounds and stood no taller than about 15 hands. Exceptional size was not considered a valuable trait. By the end of the Medieval period, breeders could produce war horses that stood 16 hands and weighed about 1,250 pounds, but they were still the exception. From 1000 to 1500 AD the average size of the war horse probably increased by 0.2 hands to reach an average size of 15.2 hands.26
European cavalry of the Middle Ages rode stallions exclusively. This was a matter of chivalric pride. The stallion is a natural fighter who, in nature, has two purposes: cover the mares of his herd and protect his herd from all enemies, including other stallions. To protect their mares, herd stallions will fight to the death. Medieval training sought to incorporate these attributes in battle, and to this end war horses were encouraged and trained to bite, kick, and stomp on their opponents. Their training also had to prepare them for the battlefield environment. As such, they were “schooled to crowds, banners, arrows, noise, and blows.” Tournaments were an opportunity not only to train knights but also to test their horses. In a tournament, the knight’s horse demonstrated its agility, quickness, and response to both the leg and bit.27
Classification of Medieval European military horses was by type and function. The most important was the pure war horse, known as the destrier. Exclusively used for tournament and combat, the destrier was the most expensive of the military types. The warrior mounted the destrier just before going into action. Another expensive horse was the hunting horse, called the courser, which was also large and fast. Some historians maintain that the destrier was so valuable that most owners only used the horse in tournaments and that the courser was the primary battle horse. The major difference between the destrier and the courser may have been training. The man-at-arms’ primary mount for transportation was known as a rouncy. This horse was usually smaller and calmer, provided a more comfortable ride, and had greater endurance than the other horses. The rouncy cost about a tenth of a destrier, making it a cost-effective mount. In fact, a poor man-at-arms may have owned only one steed, a rouncy, which he used as transport and combat horse. A palfrey was another riding horse, selected purely for its elegant looks. The palfrey, which cost about the same as a rouncy, was chosen for his appearance, and was the knight’s mount only on occasions, such as parades, when the rider wanted to stress an elegant appearance over all other factors.28
Armor and Horse Equipment
A significant number of military historians have suggested that the primary reason for the dominance of cavalry in the Middle Ages was directly due to two technological innovations: the stirrup and the framed saddle.29
As indicated in previous chapters, new evidence indicates that the framed saddle appeared in the Roman period. The exact origins of the stirrup are unclear. It almost certainly came to Europe by way of the steppe. There are reports of early leather loop stirrups existing among the steppe Sarmatians around 300 BC, probably attached to padded blankets. Definitive evidence of stirrups attached to a framed saddle dates to AD 600. The theory that the stirrup combined with the saddle was the key to the rise of the cavalry and the dominance of the Medieval knight inaccurately assumes the ineffectiveness of ancient cavalry riding without stirrups. It also discounts the important decline in disciplined infantry. The stirrup improved the rider’s stability and thus increased his ability to wield his weapons. However, this improvement was incremental not revolutionary. The stirrup improved the overall combat capability of the mounted warrior, but it did not fundamentally alter the nature of cavalry combat.
The saddle evolved in the Middle Ages. Based on contemporary art, Carolingian cavalry of the late ninth and tenth century rode a saddle that was about the same size as the Roman horned saddle. However, instead of “horns” the saddle’s forward rise was a continuous pommel and the rear rise was a continuous cantle. The saddles included stirrups. The saddles depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry are not significantly different, other than they clearly show that the cantle of the saddle is higher than the pommel. A twelfth-century design with a higher pummel and cantle replaced this style. The intent of this later Medieval saddle was to lock the rider into position so that he was not easily unhorsed when using the large lance. It had the disadvantage of decreasing the contact of the rider’s body with the horse and thus decreasing the rider’s ability to control his mount. In its extreme form it included a cantle that literally wrapped partly over the rider’s hips. It also included rolls behind the rider’s thighs to push his legs forward into the characteristic “chair” seat of the Medieval knight. The significantly raised pommel of the saddle could extend across the bow to just above the rider’s knees. The armored exterior (forward facing) portions of the pommel could provide significant protection to the lower body and upper legs. The exterior (rear facing) part of the cantle was also armored.30
Curb bits were the dominant type used on military mounts in Europe. Because the horses were exclusively stallions, and because the saddle, armor, and shield all decreased the rider’s ability to use his other aids, the Medieval horseman needed a very severe bit that would guarantee him a quick and effective reaction from his horse. Because the horse felt even the slightest adjustment of the rein, the rider had to travel with a very loose rein. The war stallion in action was essentially either responding to an abrupt and severe command or following his instinct and training. Combat horsemanship in Medieval Europe was not subtle. In the course of the melee, the reins could become the target of an opposing cavalryman leading some European cavalrymen to protect the leather reins with hinged metal plates. These were cumbersome and were soon replaced by lightweight bit chains.31
An important Medieval addition to horse equipment was the nailed on horseshoe. Although some archaeologists suggest the existence of nailed horseshoes in the Roman period, the conclusive physical evidence places the use of the iron shoe attached with nails in Europe in the tenth century. The iron horseshoe, designed to protect the horse’s hoof, greatly increased the horse’s utility. In addition to the horseshoe’s other merits, a metal-shod hoof was much more dangerous to an infantryman than an unshod hoof. In nature, hoof growth compensates for the natural wear on the hoof. Horses carrying a load wear their hooves more quickly. Riding a horse (especially on hard surfaces) increases wear on the hoof beyond what normal growth can replace. Before the advent of the shoe, ridden horses often went lame early in life. In damp and cold climates, like central Europe, the hoof becomes softer and wears out even faster.
Before the advent of horseshoes, military campaigning had to consider how far the army could travel before the wear of the horse’s foot precluded continued operations (and a successful return). It also inclined the military to favor smaller horses, which typically had hardier feet. Development of the horseshoe greatly mitigated these considerations; it also added the trained farrier to the support train of cavalry forces.32 Horseshoes were not in general use in the Medieval Middle East, probably because t
he dry climate encouraged a hard, healthy hoof.
Horse armor, a regular feature of ancient cavalry forces, was lost in Europe with the fall of Rome. Unarmored cavalry horses were the norm at the beginning of the Medieval period. The concept of armoring the horse likely came from Spain and probably was associated with encounters with Islamic cavalry during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Early armor took the form of a chain mail trapping that draped over the body of the horse and tied around the lower neck to enclose the chest area. The trapping would extend to the knee on the front legs and the hocks of the back legs. The trapper fit around the saddle. A quilted pad, placed under the mail, prevented abrasion and added another layer of protection. A leather chamfron supplemented the mail to add protection to the head. By the thirteenth century a mail crinet might also encircle the neck. In the late twelfth century large cloth caparisons, possibly quilted, covered the horse’s armor. Embroidered heraldic colors of the rider’s coat of arms often decorated the caparison. In period depictions of men-at-arms, the caparison usually hides the details of the horse’s armor. This may have been intentional: with the caparison covering the armor an adversary could not easily identify unarmored aspects of the horse.
The fourteenth century saw the replacement of mail armor with solid plate armor on horse and man. A plate metal chamfron replaced the leather chamfron. The plate chamfron was larger and more encompassing, extending over the poll, and protecting the ears, cheeks, and muzzle. A set of plates were linked together to form a crinet to protect the neck. Plate armor in particularly vulnerable areas like the chest augmented mail trappings. In some cases a plate peytral augmented the mail. Armorers adapted full plate armor to the horse by the fifteenth century. This included, in addition to the chamfron and crinet, a plated peytral designed to conform to the horse’s chest and shoulders, and a plate crupper to cover his croup and stifle. A plate called a flanchard covered the exposed belly directly under the saddle between the peytral and the crupper. Use of mail trappings ceased after the second decade of the fifteenth century although use of mail supplements to plate armor continued until the sixteenth century. A full set of horse plate armor weighed about 66 pounds.33
War Horse Page 13
