Volume I Part 6 (1/2)
[Sidenote: Excellence of Italian armour.]
The history of armour would be interesting in another point of view, if any of the great battles in the middle ages had been decided by the superior qualities of any particular weapon possessed by either side. No such circ.u.mstances are recorded. Nor can we trace the progress of armour through the various countries of chivalry. But the superiority of Italian civilisation, and our knowledge that the long-pointed sword was invented in Italy, authorise our giving much honour to the Italians; and we also know that down to the very latest period of chivalric history Milanese armour was particularly esteemed.[120] Germany, as far as the ancient martial costume of that country is known, can claim nothing of invention, nor did armour always take in that country during its course from Italy through other lands. France quickly received all the varieties in armour of Italian ingenuity, and in a few years they, pa.s.sed into England. This geographical course was not however the usual mode of communicating ideas in chivalric ages. Knights of various countries met in tournaments, and in those splendid scenes every description of armour was displayed, and fas.h.i.+ons were interchanged.
Notwithstanding the general similarity of costume which these gallant and friendly meetings of cavaliers in tournaments were likely to produce, each nation had its peculiarities which it never resigned. Thus it may be mentioned that the swords of the Germans and also of the Normans were always large, and that those of the French were short. As the bow was the great weapon of the Normans, the attendants of the English knights used the bow more frequently than similar attendants in any other country. The peasantry of Scotland, in spite of repeated statutes, never would use the bow: spears and axes were their weapons, while their missiles were cross-bows and culverins. The mace was also a favourite, and their swords were of excellent temper. Their defensive armour was the plate-jack, hauberk, or brigantine; and a voluminous handkerchief round their neck, ”not for cold but for cutting,” as one of their writers describes it.
Almost all the Scottish forces, except a few knights, men-at-arms, and the border p.r.i.c.kers, who formed excellent light cavalry, acted upon foot.[121]
[Sidenote: Of the knight's armour; of the squire, &c.]
Little need be said concerning the military costume of the esquire, and the men-at-arms. The esquire wore silver spurs in distinction from the golden spurs of the knight; but when an esquire as a member of the third cla.s.s of chivalry held a distinct command, he was permitted to bear at the end of his lance a penoncel, or small triangular streamer. In countries where the bow was not used, the weapons of the men-at-arms were generally the lance and the sword. This was the case when the knight led his personal retainers to battle; but when his followers were the people of any particular town which he protected, few chivalric arms were borne, and the bill more frequently than the spear was brought into the field. The cross-bow can hardly be considered a weapon of chivalry. It required no strength of arm like the long-bow; it allowed none of that personal display which was the soul of knighthood. The popes, to their honour, frequently condemned its use; and it was more often bent by mercenaries than the regular attendants of knights.
The men-at-arms generally fought on horseback, and it often happened that archers, after the Asiatic mode, were mounted. The defensive armour of the knight's attendants was not so complete as his own, for they could not afford its costliness, and difference of rank was marked by difference of harness. Thus, in France, only persons possessed of a certain estate were permitted to wear the haubergeon, while esquires had nothing more than a simple coat of mail, without hood or hose[122], though their rank in n.o.bility might equal that of the knights. The men-at-arms had generally the pectoral and the s.h.i.+eld, and the morion or open helmet, without vizor or beaver. They frequently wore a long and large garment called the aketon, gambeson, or jack, formed of various folds of linen cloth or leather: but it is totally impossible to give any useful or interesting information on a subject which caprice or poverty perpetually varied.
[Sidenote: Allegories made on armour.]
Armour had other purposes in the mind of the knight besides its common and apparent use. Days of chivalry were especially times when imagination was in its freest exercise, and every thing was full of allegories and recondite meanings. To the knight a sword was given in resemblance of a cross to signify the death of Christ, and to instruct him that he ought to destroy the enemies of religion by the sword. This is intelligible; but there is something apparently arbitrary in the double edge signifying that a knight should maintain chivalry and justice. The spear, on account of its straitness, was the emblem of truth, and the iron head meant strength, which truth should possess. The force and power of courage were expressed by the mace. The helmet conveyed the idea of shamefacedness; and the hauberk was emblematical of the spiritual panoply which should protect a man and a soldier from the vices to which his nature was liable. The spurs meant diligence. The gorget was the sign of obedience; for as the gorget went about the neck protecting it from wounds, so the virtue of obedience kept a knight within the commands of his sovereign and the order of chivalry; and thus neither treason nor any other foe to virtue corrupted the oath he had taken to his lord and knighthood. The s.h.i.+eld showed the office of a knight; for as the knight placed his s.h.i.+eld between himself and his enemy, so the knight was the barrier between the king and the people, and as the stroke of a sword fell upon the s.h.i.+eld and saved the knight, so it behoved the knight to present his body before his lord when he was in danger. The equipment and barding of the horse furnished also subjects of instruction. The saddle meant safety of courage; for as by the saddle a knight was safe on his horse, so courage was the knight's best security in the field. The great size of the saddle was regarded as emblematical of the greatness of the chivalric charge. It was added, that as the head of a horse went before its rider, so should reason precede all the acts of a knight; and as the armour at the head of a horse defended the horse, so reason kept the knight from blame. The defensive armour of a horse ill.u.s.trated the necessity of wealth to a knight; for a knight without estate could not maintain the honours of chivalry, and be protected from temptation, for poverty opens the door to treason and vice.
It was in this manner that the romantic imaginations of the knights of chivalry drew moralities from subjects apparently little capable of furnis.h.i.+ng instruction; and then a.s.suming a more sober and rational tone, they would exclaim that chivalry was not in the horse, nor in the arms, but was in the knight, who taught his horse well, and accustomed himself and his sons to n.o.ble actions and virtuous deeds; and a foul and recreant knight, who taught himself and his son evil works, converted one into the other, the cavaleresque and equestrian qualities, making himself and his son beasts, and his horse a knight.[123]
[Sidenote: The horse of the knight.]
Before we close our account of the cavalier's equipment, something must be said regarding his steed, his _good_ steed, as he was fond of calling him.
The horse of the knight was necessarily an animal of great power when his charge was a cavalier with his weighty armour. The horses of Spain were highly famed. In the country itself those of Asturia were preferred, but in other chivalric states they regarded not the particular province wherein the horse was bred.[124] The favourite steed of William the Conqueror came from Spain. The crusades were certainly the means of bringing Asiatic horses into Europe; and it was found that the Arabian, though smaller than the bony charger of the west, had a compensating power in his superior spirit. French and English romance writers were not from natural prejudices disposed to praise any productions of Heathenesse, yet the Arabian horse is frequently commended by them. That doughty knight, Guy, a son of Sir Bevis of Hampton,
----”bestrode a _Rabyte_,[125]
That was mickle and nought _light_,[126]
That Sir Bevis in Paynim lond Had iwunnen with his hond.”
The Arab horse was the standard of perfection, as is evident from the romancer's praise of the two celebrated steeds, Favel and Lyard, which Richard Coeur de Lion procured at Cyprus.
”In the world was not their peer, Dromedary, nor destreer, Steed, Rabyte, ne Camayl, That ran so swift sans fail.
For a thousand pounds of gold Should not that one be sold.”
The Arabian horse must have been already prepared for part of the discipline of a chivalric horse. On his own sandy plains he had been accustomed to stop his career when his fleetness had cast the rider from his seat; and in the encounter of lances so often were knights overthrown, that to stand firm, ready to be mounted again, was a high quality of a good horse. The steed of the Cid was very much celebrated in Spain; and, in acknowledgment for an act of great kindness, the owner wished to present him to the king, Alfonso of Castile. To induce the king to accept him, he showed his qualities.
”With that the Cid, clad as he was in mantle furr'd and wide, On Bavieca vaulting, put the rowel in his side; And up and down, and round and round, so fierce was his career, Stream'd like a pennon on the wind Ruy Diaz' minivere.
And all that saw them prais'd them,--they lauded man and horse, As matched well, and rivalless for gallantry and force.
Ne'er had they look'd on horseman might to this knight come near, Nor on other charger worthy of such a cavalier.
Thus, to and fro a-rus.h.i.+ng, the fierce and furious steed, He snapp'd in twain his. .h.i.ther rein:--'G.o.d pity now the Cid;'
'G.o.d pity Diaz,' cried the Lords;--but when they look'd again, They saw Ruz Diaz ruling him with the fragment of his rein; They saw him proudly ruling, with gesture firm and calm, Like a true Lord commanding,--and obey'd as by a lamb.
And so he led him foaming and panting to the king, But 'No,' said Don Alphonso, 'it were a shameful thing That peerless Bavieca should ever be bestrid By any mortal but Bivar,--mount, mount again, my Cid.'”[127]
It has been often said that the knight had always his ambling palfrey, on which he rode till the hour of battle arrived; and that the war-horse, from the circ.u.mstance of his being led by the right hand of the squire, was called dextrarius.[128] With respect to sovereigns and men of great estate this was certainly the custom, but it was by no means a general chivalric practice. Froissart's pages are a perfect picture of knightly riding and combatting; and each of his favorite cavaliers seems to have had but one and the same steed for the road and the battle-plain. Even romance, so p.r.o.ne to exaggerate, commonly represents the usage as similar; for when we find that a damsel is rescued, she is not placed upon a spare horse, but the knight mounts her behind himself.[129]
The _destrier_, _cheval de lance_, or war-steed, was armed or barded[130]