posted 09-10-1999 09:46 PM               

I was wondering what you could tell me about the usual weaponry and armor of a well equipped knight in 12th century Europe.

I know little of swords etc. and how they differ from time period to time period and am interested in knowing the preferred features and innovations of the times.

posted 09-11-1999 01:14 AM               

OK - from the skin out, it will be easier to visualise it that way. Your knight will be wearind braeis - linen undershorts that nearly extend to the knee, and a linen shirt. He will wear a pair of lightly padded single legged hosen that tie to a waistbelt, covering the bottom of the legs of his braeis, over the hosen wil be a pair of mail leggins - extending as far as the top of his padded hosen - but no farther. The mail chausses tie to the belt that his padded hosen do. a leather thong would be laced through the mail legs circleing his leg above the knee - tied to distribute some of the wieght of the mail.

Over his shirt he would pull on a padded gambeson made of linen - it would have sleeves to his wrist - possibly ending in a mitten that would have a hole in the palm so he can easily put his hand in and out of the mitt. The gambeson might have the armpit cut out and the inside of the elbow as well to facilitate movement of the arm. Over his gambeson he would pull a hauberk of mail, with full length sleeves and an attached coif (hood). The sleeves would end in attached mail mittens that would have a leather palm with a slit in it so he could get his hand out of the armour to do fine manipulation.

The sleeves of the hauberk would have leather thongs threaded through the mail just above the elbow - to tie up so the weight of the mail is evenly distributed. He would now put on a padded arming coif (to protect his head and prevent his hair being pulled by the mail hood). He would pull the mail coif on - it might have a thong as a band around his head to secure it. There would be a flap of mail tha would be hanging off the right hand side of his coif that was lined with leather - and probably padded as well. This flap would draw over his chin and lower mouth, tieing to the left hand side of his coif. This flap protects his neck, chin, and mouth.

He might have a breast and back plate of hardened leather that would be laced on his torso at this point, before his surcoat was put on - this may be a little early in armour development for one though. Alternatively, his surcoat might have a padded torso, with some iron plated riveted in the front of it - there is a statue of an English knight from 1225 ? +- in Winchester Cathederal with a re-enforced surcoat like this. It would not be easily visible to the casual viewer of our theoretical knight. His spurs (prick variety) would have been strapped on long since, and his swordbelt would be buckled on at this point. His sword would be a classic single - hand broadsword with a cruciform hilt. It would be in a scabbard of wood covered with leather - possibly with designs tooled into it. It would have a decorative chape at the point of the scabbard - it might well have brass decorative little bits on the body of the scabbard itself (called by archeaologists "findings" that serve no purpose but to decorate the scabbard - cutouts in geometric shapes - maybe with his coat of arms enameled on them. He would most likely have no dagger on his swordbelt in the 13th c.. the belt angles on a slope from his right to left hip, the sword at almost a paralell to his left leg. The swordbelt would be decorated with little metal findings as well.

Our knight is nearly fully armoured now. He might wear a kettlehat on his head for good vision - this would look somewhat like a WWI & WWII "tommy" helmet - but with a deeper bowl, and a deeper brim - it might also have a centeral ridge, or re-enforcing bands across the bowl. It would buckle or tie under his chin. Some - from contemporary artwork - were painted in primary colours - to look nice and prevent rust. His heavy duty helmet would be a great - helm. Early in the century it would be flat topped, with a mask that extended over the face - pierced with breathes and having a vision slit - but with no neck protection. By the end of the century, it will have developed into a proper great helm - still flat topped, but with the mask and neck plate meeting forming a proper great helm. A poor knight, or a knight at the beginning of the 12th c. would still have a conical helm with a nasal - but probably one piece - not the spagen - multi plate construction. The conical helms had the point of the helmet move forward, and had the nasal enlarge ino a mask like the early great helms before the middle of the 12th c..

At the beginning of the 12th c., "kite" sields (teardrop shaped - with the point at the bottom) were still in use, but by the middle of the century, the top of the shield was made straight across, giving the shield the look of an elongated heating iron - point to the bottom again. Besides the straps used to hold the shield, there would be a long strap called a "guige" strap, to stap the shield from his back when not in use. The shield would be made out of several layers of thin wood, laminated together, and covered with leather. This will be painted with his coat of arms. It would not be edged with metal.

When our knight mounted his warhorse (not a great cart-horse, but a swift 14.5 - 15.2 hh fiery stallion), he would take his lance, which would be like a spear with a thin shaft - probably 8' long - not thick with a guard like the ones used in the later middle ages.It might have a pennon with his arms on it near the lance head. Our Knight might well have a mace ( a wood haft with a solid iron or bronze head - not flanged like later examples), or an axe hanging from his saddle as a secondary weapon.

I hope this helps you Julie - I have no problem visualizing your knight - but I may not be as clear as I would like to describing him. If you have any questions about his gear -ask away !

posted 09-12-1999 08:29 AM               

Bob gives an excellent description of the "well equipped" knight in 12th Cent England/France. Knowing that you are especially interested in William Marshall, this would probably be good for him, and other serious warfighting knights he was with. A few cautions however:

1. Bob describes the "high end" equipment. Realize that there was no central commissariat for any feudal army, and there could be a fair amount of variation in equipment even in the same army. The surviving records of the 12th Cent show that the minimum legal requirements for the holder of a knight's fee involved only a helmet (type unspecified), a mail shirt (the terms hauberk and haubergon (sp?) both being used), the sword, lance, shield, and, of course, the horse. Legal records indicate that making sure all knights met even these minimum requirements was sometimes a problem. I would guess that there were quite a few who tried to squeek by with the bare minimum of arms and armor, which they may well have been handed down over several generations.

2. There was some regional variations, which may come into play if you write about Marshall's travels. The armored horseman of the German Empire was somewhat different from the English/French knight. He was likely a ministerial, not an aristocrat, and probably not so well armed. Remember that the Wendish Crusade was going on in the late 12th Cent, as well as Barbarosa's numerous campaigns, so there were a lot of German fighting men about. The Normans of Apulia and Sicily had adopted some Arab/Byzantine equipment (lamalar armor, etc.), and this applied to the native Crusader knights in Syria.

3. Note that a lot of things changed between 1100 and 1200. At the beginning of the 12th Century the familiar surcoat (worn over armor) was hardly known, while at the end of the century, they were quite common. As Bob indicated, a lot depends on when in the century you are talking about. I also anticipate that, at any given time, there were some knights who welcomed new equipment/fashions, while others stubbornly resisted any change from the way ol' Grandad did business.

Hope this is some help, and doesn't just complicate things

posted 09-12-1999 09:34 AM               

I knew you'd probably be wise to me and my "motive" for this request. ;-) What you say makes so much sense though. It reminds me much of what some women went through in order to serve at court (enough jewels on their clothes etc.).

I appreciate your imput as always. On these German fighting men, how much of a part did they play in the mercenaries that were so often hired? I know they came from various places, just wondering about the logistics of it all.

You often point out things I woldn't think of until needed and then I would be scrambling for info. You are very handy to have around. Thanks.

posted 09-13-1999 07:50 AM               

Several sources deal with the differences between French/English knighthood and the German "Ritterstand", probably the best being Frances Gies "The Knight in History". Another that I found useful was "Warfare in Feudal Europe" by John Beeler. Another one R. Stewart's "Barbarosa, Scourge of Europe" isn't a scholarly book, but it is full of sketches and prints from period sources. All sources seem to agree that the German Empire was behind the French/English in their acceptance of feudal practices and arms development.

To start with, the social standing of the average German knight was fairly low in the 12th Cent. While all the nobility were warriors, the knightly class/"Ritterstand" was established by the Emperors from their non-noble, and sometimes non-free, ministerials, who were a class that owed their position in the Imperial administration to the Emperor alone, as they had no ancestral holdings. They were a counterbalance to the hereditary nobility who were frequently at odds with the Emperor (through the second half of the 12th Cent, Henry of Saxony was often fighting the Emperor Fredrick Barbarosa). The ministerials owed their allegiance directly to the Emperor, and not through any intermediate lords. In the second half of the 12th Cent, over half of the Emperor's military forces were made up of these ministerials. They were also highly resented by the old time aristocrats, because they had considerable power without being high born. The hereditary nobility did have their own military forces, but for a long time they continued to rely on general levys of militia, as opposed to true fuedal military obligations. Even the ceremonial aspects got to Germany late. Francis Gies indicated that dubbing did not appear in the German Empire until late in the 12th Cent., and even then was restricted to the members of the major houses. The Ritterstand stuck with the old Teutonic tradition of having a father or uncle present the new warrior with his sword until well into the High Middle Ages. Eventually the ministerials were elevated into the lower nobility (the Freiherren), but that didn't occur until much later.

Robert's book shows several pictures/sketches of knights/Ritters during Barbarosa's reign (which covered most of the second half of the 12th Cent) which shows them in hauberks (some knee length, and some better described as byrnies) and conical helments much like the Norman knights of the early 12th Cent. I expect that German knights who came into close contact with French/English knights (such as those in the Rhineland, or those who went on Crusade and lived to tell about it) may have adopted the more complete armor earlier than those in the central part of the Empire. Conversely, those Ritters on the eastern frontier may have stuck with the older style equipment for a much longer period.

The Papal-Imperial feud was in full swing during the 12th Cent, and Fredrick Barbarosa spent a lot of time with a German army in northern Italy, and also went on crusade (twice!). Henry the Lion (of Saxony) pushed the eastern frontier, and together with the Danes, fought the Wendish Crusade. In between these actions, Fredrick and Henry fought each other, with the various German princes taking one side or the other as they saw fit. I expect during the occasional times of peace in the German Empire, there may well have been a lot of veteran Ritters looking for work. Particularly after Richard's stay in Austria, they may well have come west to try their fortunes. Richard seems to have made a good impression on his German "hosts", and he did not seem to hold many grudges over the affair. However, while this line of supposition makes sense, I do not know of any large group or unit of German mercenaries who fought for France or England in that time period.

I hope I could be of some help here. I don't know how much of this applies to William Marshall, but I do know that Richard I became embroiled in Imperial politics because of his capture/ransom after the Third Crusade.

posted 09-13-1999 03:39 PM               

Really appreciate the book recommendations. You are way up on my "Good Guy" list, BTW.

:-D