82

Caroline E. Jones

32 Thus taking issue with Larry Bensons assumption that the tyxte was the poem itself Gavin Hughes
in Art and Tradition in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutgers University Press, 1965), pp.1656.
33 At this point in his paper Schleusener refers to Batesons suggestion that Leo the Great Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare
had instigated a graded scheme for reading the blessings one by one, ranked in an order
of merit; see Patience, edited by Hartley Bateson, Publications of the University of
in Chaucer and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Manchester, English Series 3, second edition (Manchester, 1918). Schleusener quite
properly identifies Augustine as the first to initiate the gradation.
34 PL, 34.1223, translated in Schaff, TheWorks of St Augustine, p.5.
35 For a detailed account ofthis theological manipulation by St Augustine to make the
Old Testament Gifts in the book of Isaiah fit with the New Testament Beatitudes And over that an haubergeoun
as recorded in Matthews Gospel, see Jones, The Gawain-poets Use ofthe Beatitudes, For percynge of his herte.
pp.4851. The Tale of Sir Thopas, B220512
36 Et surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret in Tharsis a facie Domini; et descendit in Ioppen: et
invenit navem euntem in Tharsis, et dedit naulum eius, et descendit in eam ut iret
cum eis in Tharsis a facie Domini,/ And Jonas rose up to flee into Tharsis from the
face ofthe Lord, and he went down to Joppe, and found a ship going to Tharsis: and
he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them to Tharsis from the This essay attempts to re-appraise selected passages ofChaucers Canterbury
face of the Lord ( Jonas 1.3). Tales and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight from a wider military histori-
37 Summa Theologiae, vol. 24, p.111 (OConnor, Appendix 4). cal and archaeological perspective. In particular, my aim is to discuss the
38 See Brooke Davis, What the Poet of Patience Really Did to the Book of Jonah, military context of arms and armour in the portrait of the Knight in the
p.270, for a summary of the traditional view.
39 See Jones, The Gawain-poets Use of the Beatitudes, p.40, where it is explained that
General Prologue, the tournament in the Knights Tale and the arming
Augustine was relying in part on Ecclesiastes, 6.9 which refers to praesumptio scenes in The Tale of Sir Thopas and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
spiritus. One ofthe most pressing dilemmas for any such assessment ofthe literary
40 PL, 34.1229, translated in Schaff, The Works of St Augustine, p.6. sources is the problematic, and occasionally multiple, meanings of words
41 In Die Omnium Sanctorum. Sermo 6[8]. and nomenclature. Today, such issues have been greatly standardised, but
42 This is especially evident in the poem Cleanness. For an account of juxtapositions made
we should remember that when Chaucer uses, for example, the term spere
between Old and New Testament tracts to demonstrate more fully the main tenant of
the sixth beatitude, see Jones, The Gawain-poets Use of the Beatitudes, pp.14165. he is not necessarily referring to the short-shafted weapon we recognise
43 For details ofChristian attitudes towards Jews in the Middle Ages, see Jeremy Cohen, today but, more often, to the long-shafted lance favoured by the knightly
The Friars and The Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca: Cornell classes.1 Equally, popular misconceptions abound regarding medieval arms
University Press, 1986), pp.1932; Jeremy Cohen, The Jews as the Killers ofChrist and armour.2 When discussing medieval military terms we are potentially
in the Latin Tradition, from Augustine to the Friars, Traditio, 39 (1983), 127 and H. faced with an alarming quagmire. While many words and phrases may still
Liebeschtz, Relations between Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages, Journal of
appear to make sense to a twenty-first century reader, such as harness,3
Jewish Studies, 16 (1965), 3546. On the representation ofJews in medieval narratives,
see Thomas H. Bestul, Texts ofthe Passion: Latin Devotional Literature and Medieval the original meaning may be contorted or changed altogether. Worse still,
Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), pp.69109. there is a bewildering array of archaic terms and technical designations for
44 See MED, s.v. jeu n. 1.(a) A Jew, one ofthe Jewish race or religion, one following the specific armour parts, all of which must be readily understood. As Thomas
Mosaic law in biblical or post-biblical times. Abler noted, it is wise to consider some of the limitations of the data
45 See, for example, Spearing, Patience and the Gawain-poet, 31120.
84 Gavin Hughes
and literature relevant to or describing military uniforms ofthe past.4 For
this reason, each military word and term must be, like the original knight
at tourney, weighed, balanced and found not to be wanting.
In 1995, Michael Prestwich noted that warfare was more important
to medieval knights than to many oftheir historians.5 This point has sub-
sequently been tackled by both historians and archaeologists. One obvi-
ous contribution to the culture of warfare comes through an analysis of its
contemporary literature. This point has been made valuably before, when
Stephen Herben wrote that such an investigation of arms and armour in
Chaucer would confirm impressions of his realism and establish more
firmly his existing claims as a dependable source for manners and customs in
the fourteenth century.6 However, one also has to be alert to the potential
dangers posed here. We must be careful to recognise the difference between
using military history to understand the observational writings ofChaucer
(and his contemporaries) and the appropriate juncture at which to use
these to corroborate or add to our knowledge. For example, we are told
that Sir Gawains mail-coat has been rokked of e roust (SGGK, 2018),
a necessary everyday process in which the coat was rolled or rubbed to
keep it burnished and clean, but not exactly the most glamorous oftasks.7
As such, a reference to this process is highly illuminating and all the more
convincing. Indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that, once one has
solved the issue of what such characters were wearing, the veracity of the
material will speak for itself. Yet, this is only part of this essays intention.
In order to put these important texts into their military historical context,
one must also analyse the practical use of such weapons and their effects.
Accordingly, I hope to emphasise that the characters ofChaucers Knight,
Sir Thopas and Sir Gawain are in their different ways representative ofthe
most identifiable class in medieval society the knight at war.
With the exception of literature and documentary evidence, there are
three main sources for studying fourteenth-century arms and armour;
manuscript drawings, surviving artefacts and funerary effigies or brasses.
Changes in armour fashions are perhaps most vividly shown by manuscript
illuminations but such images must be treated with caution, as they can
frequently post-date the event they are depicting. Although many can
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 85
give intriguing and accurate clues to a knights attire during a particular
period, some depictions can equally be fanciful creations from the illu-
minators own imagination. In fact, this is a common frailty within the
study of military uniforms in general, as we can see from the notoriously
contradictory eye-witness illustrative evidence regarding uniforms from the
Napoleonic Wars. There is one notable exception, however. MS Cotton
Nero A.x, Art 3, in the British Library, combines the description of the
arming ofSir Gawain with directly associated illustrations ofthe result. Sir
Gawain is shown in armour in two of these four illustrations (folios 129b
and 130) which, although hampered by a simplified drawing technique
and the passage oftime, appears to portray Gawain in the same harness as
described in the text.8
To date, Herbens analysis in Speculum in 1937 of arms and armour of
the period perhaps remains the most familiar within Chaucerian scholar-
ship and is a groundbreaking and most useful piece of research. Skilful
and exact, Herben succinctly evaluated the problems inherent in Middle
English medieval military terminology and explained them in an authori-
tative manner. However, Herbens analysis is not without potential mis-
interpretation and, where this occurs, it is largely due to the discoveries
of current research or thinking. One significant drawback with Herbens
assessment of arms and armour is his contention that much less useful
is the actual surviving armor ofthe period.9 Although one can sympathise
with Herbens comments regarding establishing issues of provenance over
such pieces of armour, modern dating techniques and forensic analysis
have advanced considerably since 1937 and he was understandably unaware
of such potential. Whilst surviving examples of entire harnesses, which
can be connected to a specific individual, are rare for this period, one still
exists in Chartres Cathedral and is identified as once belonging to Charles
VI, King of France, 13801422. It comprises a pair of gauntlets, a coat
armour, a visored bascinet with attached aventail, one section ofleg armour
and one section of arm armour. This was made for him whilst he was still
Dauphin and was duly placed at Chartres in approximately 1383.10 As such,
it corresponds closely with the armour described by both Chaucer and the
Gawain-poet. Furthermore, from medieval battlefield excavations (namely
Visby, 1361 and Towton, 1461), important elements of armour, including
86 Gavin Hughes
mail and plate, have been recovered and examined. Indeed, whilst both of
these sites are of immense importance, Visby (with its evidence for armour
in situ) remains unique. Here, many ofthe dead were hastily buried owing,
perhaps, to the rapid decomposition of the corpses.11 Consequently, the
dead were cast into war-pits, many still clothed in their hauberks, coifs
and iron plate-armour. As Osgood reminds us, much of this armour was
perhaps already obsolete by the time of the battle and had probably been
handed down through families.12 Thordeman even suggests that this form
oflamellar armour was worn specifically by the peasant Gotland army and
was exceptionally antiquated, being hastily modernised and brought into
service.13 It could also be feasible that the armour was a dated but localised
style that possibly belonged to Danish or German mercenaries hired by
King Valdemar IV of Denmark for the campaign.
Whilst the circumstances at Visby were exceptional, the over-riding
point remains that armour was expensive; it was a highly prized and valu-
able commodity, and hence it was so often stripped from bodies on the
battlefield. Consequently, when a knight died, his armour would normally
be passed down through the generations and re-used or up-dated. Mail-
coats in particular were frequently recycled as they could be easily repaired
or put to other uses14 and, as such, surviving examples of early pieces can
be rare. This fact places the Visby artefacts into an extremely important
context. Even small items of equipment were carefully protected by tin-
ning, a process where thin sheets oftin are applied to iron plate to reduce
the risk of rust. Whilst no evidence for the associated method of hot-
dip tinning has thus far been determined on subjected examples of plate
armour, it would appear that medieval spurs were regularly protected in this
manner.15 It would appear that only when military items had become utterly
obsolete were they then relegated to the role of relics or tomb decorations.
Even then, this was usually a deliberate act of political ostentation. Only
in the most extravagant displays of status and disposable wealth might we
begin to see elements of an up-to-date harness on display. In this regard,
we must immediately think ofthe Black Princes tomb at Canterbury and
the intriguing forensic evidence from his armour there.
We are particularly fortunate in the British Isles to have unrivalled
access to visual evidence in the form of effigies and brasses and, within
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 87
England, this evidence is exemplary. These types of funerary monuments
are an excellent medium for plotting changes in armour style or fashion.
Indeed, with the following caveats, these effigies and brasses can offer valu-
able snapshots of an English knights arms and armour. Military effigies
frequently take the form of alabaster or stone (or occasionally metal) three-
dimensional images intended to be a realistic representation of the indi-
vidual to be memorialised. Whilst some items of equipment may be stylised
(such as sword or lance lengths) the representation of armour is often clearly
recreated and can easily be deconstructed. A similar dilemma with effigies,
as with illuminations, is that they could be erected many years after an indi-
viduals death and not necessarily contemporaneous with it. Consequently,
some depictions of armour may not reflect the owners actual armour in life.
One example ofthis comes from Hereford Cathedral, where the effigy of
Sir Richard Pembridge KG (elected November 1368) depicts him resting
on a great helm; however, it is not the same, older pattern, helm that he
apparently wore. Instead, it is seemingly styled on the helm worn by the
Black Prince as found in Canterbury Cathedral. Both men died within a
year of each other (in 1375 and 1376 respectively) and Pembridges original
helm is now in the possession of the Royal Museum of Scotland.16 The
situation is slightly less complicated with monumental brasses, which are
often dated and erected at the time ofthe individuals death. Indeed, there
is such a magnificent corpus of research on this matter alone that it makes
the study of armour far more immediate and personal. Although most of
these works date from the late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century,
the exactitude of scholarship inherent in many of them, combined with
the antiquarian instinct to catalogue in detail such memorials before they
were lost, makes them invaluable.17 Without these works, much of the
evidence we have for arms and armour for the fourteenth century would
have vanished or, at least, been diminished.
During the long period ofChaucers lifetime (c.13431400) we have basi-
cally two fashions in armour type, one of which, chain mail, was waning as
the other, plate armour, was gaining favour. It is characterised by the adop-
tion of composite types of armour, that is, the wearing of a mail-coat with
additional forms ofleather, padded and plate armour protection. Thus no
88 Gavin Hughes
two English (or other) knights would have been dressed in exactly the same
way. As is noted below, local, regional and family circumstances allowed
for a vast range of armour types. Consequently, it is necessary to describe
the practical nature of a knights armour and how and why he put it on.
The preparation ofthe armour for the wearer (devisynge ofharneys,
KnT, A 2496) was a lengthy and complicated procedure. A knight was
unable to arm himself and needed the assistance of a squire. This brings us
to consider one of the most potentially confusing issues of body-armour
nomenclature and those medieval expressions for it, namely the differ-
ences between aketon, haubergeon and hauberk. An aketon was a padded
cotton or linen jerkin worn for very light protection, probably wisely in
a knights case, to make the heavy mail and plate armour more comfort-
able.18 Without such under-garments, it is debateable whether a knight
could walk, let alone fight. A gambeson was very similar to an aketon, but
was a heavier quilted jacket and a form of armour in its own right.19 Whilst
Chaucer makes reference to all ofthese items (GP, A 76, KnT, A 2431 and
Thop, B220501 and 2053), hauberk and haubergeon can appear almost
interchangeable. Originally the long sleeved mail-coat was called a halberg20
but, as Oakeshott comments, haubert or hauberk became the correct term
for it after c.1100.21 By Chaucers day, hauberk seems to have had a further
meaning, usually understood as referring to additional armour, either lamel-
lar, breastplate or upper plate armour. This could probably be distinguished
by the context of the sentence in which it is used. On his departure from
Hautdesert Sir Gawain calls for the chamberlain to bring him his bruny or
coat of mail (SGGK, 2012 and 2018) and the poet specifies also his paunce
or armour to protect the stomach and breastbone and platez (SGGK, 2017;
compare 204 and 5845), thus emphasising the adoption of battle-order
and of imminent conflict. Equally, a haubergeon (or little hauberk) has
also been understood to be a mail-coat, but one which was usually shorter
and sleeveless.22 By the mid-fourteenth century armour was increasingly
sophisticated and effective, with even chain mail a surprisingly efficient
form of protection. Whilst a limited amount of copper-alloy mail has been
recovered from the Towton battlefield,23 again, Visby has provided some
ofthe most remarkable examples. Here, some 185 mail coifs or hoods were
recovered, some still attached to their wearer and covering all but a small
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 89
portion of the face.24 As Kelly DeVries has commented, following experi-
ments by the Royal Armouries on mail-coats, it was found that:
Sword slashes are deflected, with spear, sword and arrow thrusts effectively stopped
by the ring defenses. Even bodkin arrows are unable to penetrate the chain armour
in these experiments.25
A composite form of armour defences, frequently alluded to by Chaucer, is
that consisting of a mail-coat supplemented by plate armour (KnT, A2119
20). It seems probable that a hauberk could also mean light torso armour
and may even refer to a common form of body armour known as a paire
plates (KnT, A 2121), that is, strips of overlapping iron or leather sown onto
(or under) a cloth or leather garment.26 At Visby, the remains oftwenty-five
such armoured jackets or waistcoats were recovered from the bodies, but
it is interesting to note that not one was identical to another. In the fresco
from Skibby Church in Denmark, two warriors are shown, clearly wear-
ing lamellar armour and a coat of plates over mail.27 At Visby, for example,
there is evidence of individuals interred in both coats of plates and lamel-
lar armour, but no remains of associated cloth material were recorded. In
Britain and Ireland such items were worn under the surcoat or jupon but
in Scandinavia and Germany, they were worn without.28 Furthermore, at
Visby, some individuals were recovered with the hoods tucked inside their
lamellar armour or hauberks, not outside as effigy evidence in the British
Isles, France or Germany might suggest.
Some scholars have doubted the accuracy offourteenth-century liter-
ary descriptions of the knightly arming process. In particular, Chaucers
long description ofthe arming ofSir Thopas (B2204777) was famously
dismissed by Manly as both absurd and contrary to the customs of the
time,29 but the sense ofthe absurd comes from the exaggeration of reality,
not in its absence. There are in fact many parallels between the arming of
Sir Thopas and the highly detailed and remarkably accurate account ofSir
Gawains armour and his preparations in arming, both at Camelot (SGGK,
566669) and at Hautdesert (SGGK, 201136). Gawains arming process
takes us through the various stages; he is clothed firstly in an aketon or
padded jacket, a dublet of a dere tars (SGGK, 571), and his arming cap
90 Gavin Hughes
made of padded leather or cloth tied under the chin, a crafty capados
(SGGK, 572), and only then can he put on his lower armour, beginning
with the sabatounz (SGGK, 574) or steel shoes and proceeding upwards.
There is a very simple explanation for this. All armour was constructed to
face downwards (and deflect blows in the same general direction) and it
was therefore easier to put on from the bottom to the top. This, in turn,
led to the donning of the luflych greuez (SGGK, 575) or greaves to pro-
tect the lower legs, then the knee guards or polaynez30 (SGGK, 5767)
which in Gawains case are highly polished and edged with gilt. These
specifically guarded against blows to the knees which, as we shall see later,
could be fatally vulnerable. Once the mail shirt or bryn/bruny (SGGK,
58081, 2012 and 2018) was put on the plate for the arms was buckled
on, with the elbow roundels or cowters (SGGK, 583) strapped into place.
These were put on just before the gauntlets, if additional torso armour is
not being worn.
By the fourteenth century it seems to have become clear that another
layer of protection was needed over the aketon and hauberk/habergeoun,
which was most probably the coat of plates as described above (p.89).
However, effigy and manuscript evidence regarding this armour is obscured
by the surcoat so its exact form is unclear.31 Additionally, a knight was
expected to own numerous examples (sometimes to excess) of any number
ofthese parts of armour. An example ofthis comes from a surviving inven-
tory of the armour and goods remaining in the estate of Raoul de Nesl,
Constable of France, who was killed at the battle of Courtrai in 1302.
This reveals an impressive array of equipment, all of which would have
been essential for a knight at war: numerous hauberks, mail-coats, linen
gambesons and parts of armour made in both steel and leather.32 There was
even a very fine pair of iron gauntlets covered in red leather.33 Interestingly,
Sir Gawain also has glouez of plate (SGGK, 583) and these are possibly
the fashionable hourglass gauntlets worn by many knights of the period
and shown as such (in a stylised form) in the Cotton Nero illustrations.
Such gauntlets were a composite form of hand armour; they encased the
palm in plate, surrounded the wrist in a sweeping cuff and protected the
fingers with small metal plates, all of which were attached to a leather inner
glove for flexibility.
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 91
Leg defences would normally involve some form of cuisseaux which
protected the thighs; commonly either cuir bouilli, that is, studded leather
or jambeaux, a form of upper greaves. Sir Gawains thigh armour is described
as being [q]ueme quyssewes (SGGK, 578) and we can infer from this
description that they are jambeaux made of plate rather than leather, con-
sidering the style of his entire harness. Jambeaux would also seem to be
part of the arming options for the knights at the tournament presided
over by Theseus (KnT, A 2123). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sir Thopas wears
jambeux of quyrboilly (Thop, B22065) which were the absolute height
offashion for the period ofthe 1350s to 1380s. The brasses for Sir William
Cheyne in Drayton Beauchamp, Buckinghamshire (c.1374) and Sir John
de Argentine at Horseheath, Cambridgeshire (c.1382) show them in a
pair of cuir bouilli, as does the brass of Sir John Raven at Berkhamsted,
Hertfordshire (c.1385). On effigies it is harder to tell whether the upper
thigh protection is leather or not, although on some, such as Sir Robert
Hiltons at Swine-in-Holderness, Yorkshire (c.1363) the carving is sugges-
tive of such.34 The same is true of Sir Maurice Berkeleys effigy (c.1368) in
Bristol.
One has only to look at the numerous illustrations in the manuscript
evidence to see that much of the arming scenes in both Sir Gawain and
Sir Thopas can be sustained. Despite this, Manly disbelieved the notion
that a knight wore anything next to his skin except a thick well padded
jerkin.35 Contemporary illustrations suggest otherwise, as does common
sense. On his departure from Hautdesert in mid winter, Sir Gawain is first
dressed in his cloez e cold for to were (SGGK, 2015) and then armed
with mail, plate armour and jupon (SGGK, 201636). The jupon/gypon or
surcoat was also a padded cloth garment, normally with heraldic devices
to identify the wearer in combat, and was designed to be worn over plate
armour. By the 1340s the traditional heraldic surcoat had become much
shorter and tighter at the waist and could vary in cut and length. Indeed,
from the years 1330 to 1350, one variation, long at the back and short at the
front, became highly fashionable and was known as the cyclas. We have a
number of interesting surviving examples of the jupon,36 but the Cotton
Nero illustration appears to show Sir Gawain with a more fashionable cut
in his red coat armour with scalloped edge. Sir Thopas first dressed in a
92 Gavin Hughes
fine linen shirt and pair ofbreeches, over which he wore an aketoun, then
an haubergeoun, a hawberk and, finally, his cote-armour or jupon whit as
is a lilye flour (Thop, B2204758). The exact nature of this last garment
has caused some debate. Whilst white may refer to the heraldic metal
(argent or silver), it is possible that the colour ofthe jupon is indeed white
and that it is devoid of armorial motifs. Sir Thopas is perfectly white in
appearance, unstained as yet by any heroic endeavour, unlike the Knight of
the General Prologue whose gypon is [a]l bismotered with his habergeon
(A 756). At heart, however, no matter how fashionable the cut, the jupon
was a vital distinguishing heraldic device and serious method of military
identification. It was imperative to be seen and recognised on both the bat-
tlefield and at tournament. This very aspect is keenly described with regard
to the knights Palamon and Arcite (KnT, A 101619). The coat armour of
[t]he grete Emetreus is of clooth of Tars/ Couched with perles white
and rounde and grete (KnT, A 2156 and 21601), suitably resplendent for
a King of India.
Different types ofhelm were needed for warfare, tournament and, in
particular, jousts. Such jousting helms had considerable protection for the
throat and eyes.37 By the end ofthe fourteenth century, the frog-mouthed
helm had become popular, with its large overhanging under plate designed
to channel any lance blows away from the eye-slits, whilst still allowing
the wearer to aim his own lance. In 1341 Gerard de Tournai, armourer to
Edward III, made the king a specifically designed suit of jousting armour,
which included a Great Helm with a separate wrapper (barber) giving extra
protection to the lower face and throat.38
Other examples from the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries
survive which can be classified as proto-frog-mouthed tournament helms.
Whilst their wearers died in the early fifteenth century, it is thought that
the helms were made during their lifetimes and were worn in tournament
by them. These include the helms of Sir Reginald Braybrook (d.1405),
Sir Nicholas Hawberk (d.1407) and Henry V (d.1422)39 whose helm still
hangs in his chantry in Westminster Abbey. Such helms were purposefully
designed to show off the wearers armorial crest. In origin crests were a
mark of special dignity, sometimes taking the form of a panache offeath-
ers.40 In the case of Sir Thopas, a latter day Sir Percival, it takes the form
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 93
of a tour with a lilie flour attached to it as befits one who bereth the
flour/ Of roial chivalry (Thop, B220967 and 20912), the fleur-de-lis
as the emblem of France being quartered by Edward III with the arms
of England in 1340.41 Sir Thopas is not unmindful of heraldic display as
he sets out on his great adventure. Such adornments were often made of
parchment or leather and then gilded or painted as required.42 Usually, such
helms were also adorned with caps of maintenance,43 as in the case of the
Black Prince. Sir Gawains precious cercle/ at vmbeclypped hys croun/
Of diamauntez a deuys/ at boe were bryt and broun (SGGK, 61518)
matches his status as King Arthurs nephew (SGGK, 35465). Beside the
crest-coronet is the crest-wreath or torse, a twisted ribbon oftwo or more
tinctures, which appears around the middle of the fourteenth century.44
It is called to mind by Chaucer in his description of Palamons supporter,
Lygurge the grete kyng ofTrace (KnT, A 2129): A wrethe of gold, arm-
greet, of huge wighte,/ Upon his heed, set ful of stones brighte,/ Of fyne
rubyes and of dyamauntz (KnT, A 21457).
Chaucer, refers to [g]old-hewen helmes (KnT, A 2500) in the prepa-
rations for the tournament itself, and the need for them to be buckled to
the knights plate armour (KnT, A 2503). The tournament helm ofHenry
V shows both the gilding of the edges and the buckling loops at the front
and rear. In Sir Thopas the helm is described as of latoun bright (Thop,
B22067); that is, it is an elaborate, shining brass-gilded helmet, for lateen
or latten was a method of coating parts (or all) ofthe armour with a gleam-
ing brasslike alloy finish. We have numerous surviving examples45 and
archaeological evidence ofthis gilding process from Royal Armoury forensic
tests (albeit on later pieces of armour). These verify that high quality steel
armours were highly decorated with oxidised layers (blueing and brown-
ing) and precious metal coatings.46
Yet it would seem that the most popular form ofknightly head armour
by the mid 1350s was the bascinet which, when worn in battle, could be
fixed with a visor and mail neck defences. This visor, if worn at all, could be
shaped in a round bulbish fashion or in a pointed snout, the latter referred
to as a hounskull or pig-faced bascinet. Chaucer does not appear to make
direct reference to this important part of a knights armour but there is
considerable manuscript illustration evidence for it.47 Whilst Sir Gawains
94 Gavin Hughes
helmet is referred to as a helme (SGGK, 6057 and 2317), when associated
with the term auentayle (SGGK, 608), it clearly means a bascinet. The
bascinet could, in turn, be worn underneath the Great Helm at tourna-
ment or be independent of it in battle. Again, there is some doubt as to
when exactly the Great Helm disappeared from use on the battlefield but
is seems likely that such pieces of armour were worn at the personal incli-
nation of their owner. Until recently it was believed that by the Hundred
Years War the Great Helm in England, Wales and Scotland was largely
only worn for ceremonial occasions or at tournament. However, under
analysis by the Royal Armouries, it appears that the helms of the Black
Prince and Sir Richard Pembridge are of battle weight and were clearly
intended to be actively used. Furthermore, the Black Princes helm car-
ries marks of sword cuts, suggesting that these defences may actually
date to the years of the knights campaigning.48 If so, it seems that such
helms still continued to be a common sight on battlefields during the mid
to late fourteenth century.
Another important element of a knights armour was the shield and,
whilst Chaucer and the Gawain-poet refer to three types common during
the fourteenth century (buckler, targe and shield), it is the heater version
(shaped like a heating iron) of the shield which is commonly associated
with the knight. The other two variations could still be found in use in
the British Isles during the middle of the eighteenth century. The targe,
as a large round leather-covered wooden shield, is popularly associated
with the highland armies of the Jacobite Rebellions, but in fact it was the
standard shield of the medieval period, undergoing only slight modifica-
tions in design from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. Equally, the
buckler was a small round shield to be held in the hand (usually the left),
where the fist was protected by a central boss. It was commonly used by
bowmen, who hung it upon the hilt ofthe sword. Chaucer refers to shields
many times, most notably in the preparation by the knights for the tourna-
ment in the Knights Tale, where they are employed in the [g]iggynge of
sheeldes (KnT, A 2504), the process oftightening and fastening the shields
with straps ready for combat. This could be seen, in a modern equivalent,
of making the shield ready for battle order. An example of this comes
in Sir Gawain, when after the third blow of the axe the hero prepares to
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 95
fight the Green Knight and is dressed in full campaign armour; his shield
is slung with such a fastened strap on the back of his shoulder, so that it
can be swung into use at a moments danger (SGGK, 2318). It has been sug-
gested that the wearing of a shield was a dying fashion in the middle ofthe
fourteenth century with the advent of more sophisticated armour. Herben
states that the wearing of shields begins to fall from favour in 1347, with
Sir John de Wantone the first knight not to be depicted wearing one and
William de Aldburgh in 1360 the last knight shown wearing his.49 But Sir
Hamo de Westons effigy in Weston-Under-Lizard, Staffordshire, must
be an early example of a shield-less knight (c.1189), whilst the effigy ofSir
Alex Mowbray (c.1367) in Kirklington, North Yorkshire, clearly depicts
him still bearing his shield.50 As with other elements of armour, artificial
cut-off dates are not helpful to analysis. Knights still needed the shield in
combat iftheir armour was of an older type. As Porter has noted, it would
have been highly likely that at any given time a vast number of different
types of armour would have been evident on a battlefield.51
There has been considerable archaeological evidence collected for
medieval horse equipment and related small finds.52 Ofthese items, some
bear armorial motifs and, even though some items could be simple pen-
dants to be hung from a horses bridle, they point to a wider decoration
of horses for important social reasons. In the Knights Tale, there is excel-
lent imagery regarding the opulence of a knights display at tournament
and there can be no doubt of the colour and pageantry such events were
designed to portray. The destriers ofthe assembled knights are an impres-
sive sight (KnT, A 24925, 2499, 2501 and 25067), whilst Emetreuss
horse is described as having iron barding and being [c]overed in clooth of
gold (KnT, A 2158). Sir Thopass horse has a saddle ofrewel boon (Thop,
B22068), that is, of walrus ivory, no doubt intricately carved, and such
items were certainly thought to signify high status. There is an excellent
example of an Italian version (c.1340) in the Louvre, which depicts a joust-
ing scene.53 Such saddles were part ofthe public display and proclamation
of symbols which are widely understood (at least on a basic level) to
reinforce the sense of belonging to a restricted elite.54 That this elite was
both military and mounted is inescapable. As Asbridge remarks, the fun-
96 Gavin Hughes
damental characteristic of medieval knighthood was the ability to fight as
a mounted warrior.55
When analysing the personal weapons of the period, it may be useful to
divide them into four rough categories; those weapons which are designed
to cut and slice, those used to pierce or puncture, those which were to smash
or crush and those designed for ballistic penetration. In general terms,
knights (whilst trained in all forms of combat) rarely used such weapons
as longbows and crossbows which were the requisite of the more humble
foot-soldier or yeoman (see GP, A 10414). Axes, swords and spears were
designed to pierce or cut an enemys armour whilst maces and warhammers
were designed to bludgeon. In forensic archaeological terms, a broadsword
or dagger produces sharp force trauma in the form of slice wounds, cuts or
stabs. Maces, poleaxes and war hammers or any other blunt heavy weapon
(including a mailed or armoured fist) causes blunt force trauma through
crushed or impacted bone. Such weapons were designed to be wielded in
one hand whilst mounted or dismounted and to smash a helmet with a
single heavy blow.
The lance and spear were calculated to puncture an opponents armour,
the former being a mounted weapon and so heavy that it needed support.
It was the standard armament of the knight and its use was primarily as
a shock weapon. When held upright, it was supported by a hook or stay
attached to the breastplate. When used in either combat or at tourna-
ment, the lance could be rested upon the shield and, indeed, some shields
were designed for this and had a section carved away for the purpose. The
lance was made from a stout wooden shaft, approximately fourteen feet
in length, with a strong iron tip (ord). A fist-guard (vamplate) was placed
above the grip and was usually of a triangular shape which tapered into the
shaft and attached to this could be a pennant (pencel), banner or standard
(gounfanoun) In the Knights Tale, an interesting detail lies in the riveting of
the lance-head to its shaft ([n]ailynge the speres) prior to the tournament
(KnT, A 2503). Chaucer does not use the term lance, preferring the word
spere, but in most cases, it is generally agreed, the lance is meant. When
Sir Gawain leaves Hautdesert he is accompanied by the guide who bere
his spere and launce (SGGK, 2066), the two terms used synonymously as
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 97
a doublet (see SGGK, 2143). At the beginning of the tournament in the
Knights Tale the speres go ful sadly in arrest (A 2602), the arrest (or arret)
being a lance-stop placed upon the breastplate. It could take the form of
a socket (as some lances had something not unlike a clip called a grate) or
a rest, but both were designed to combine the weight ofknight and horse
behind the lance as it smashed against an enemy. There is also reference
to the launcegay 56 in Sir Thopas (B21942 and 2011), which could refer to
a form of light lance, much like a javelin or throwing spear. It was also a
formidable weapon, fit to percen a giants mawe (Thop, B2201016).
Once the lance had been dispensed with, the knight had a number of
lethal short-shafted weapon options to choose from. Some of these had
variations within their own classification, such as the mace. At its simplest,
this was a large lump of iron on the end of a shaft (as used by a giant, Thop,
B22003); at its most advanced, it was a multi-indented flanged implement
designed to inflict more than a mere glancing blow (KnT, A 2124, 2559
and 2611). The battle-axe could easily slice through armour and bone; the
sparth of twenty pound of wighte (KnT, A 2520) is not the smaller ver-
sion to be used on horseback but a great weapon to be used on foot. This is
indeed a battle-axe to match that ofthe Green Knight on his entrance into
Camelot, a hoge and vnmete,/ A spetos spare to expoun in spelle with
a head []e lenke of an elnerde, that is, forty-five inches long (SGGK,
20810). Furthermore, such weapons were closely associated with execu-
tion by beheading, as with the Great Sword, and the Green Knights axe
seems entirely suitable for this purpose.
In contrast, the poleaxe was effectively a combination weapon, formed
from an axe on one side and either a hammer or curved point (falcons
beak) on the other. The weapons head was crowned by a spike and the
whole was placed on a haft which could be several feet in length. The use of
poleaxes and their deadliness can be readily shown by a skull of a victim
at Towton with a small square hole in the right-hand side ofthe head, con-
sistent with a sharp blow from such a weapon.57 Hence the use of poleaxes
was forbidden at the tournament in the Knights Tale (A 2544). An unusual
form ofhand ballistic weapon is used by the giant Sir Oliphaunt (a Goliath
using the methods of a David) in Sir Thopas, a fel staf-slynge (B22019). The
sling was an ancient weapon, sometimes associated with the Macedonian
98 Gavin Hughes
armies of Alexander. It was in use for many centuries in classical warfare
or amongst tribal societies up to the modern period. It is a deadly device,
which uses the weight ofthe user combined with the momentum oftheir
swing to power a projectile with considerable accuracy. In the period under
review here, such weapons were not commonly associated with warfare,
although they may have been used for sporting occasions.
The symbolic and standard knightly weapon was the sword. As with
armour, a technical terminology developed in the naming ofthe five main
parts ofthis versatile weapon; the hilt, the pommel, the grip, the guard and
the blade. The hilt actually included three of these parts and refers to the
section ofthe sword which included the pommel, guard and grip. Ofthese
three, the pommel provided the sword with an effective counter-weight as
well as a decorative finial to the grip. During the middle ofthe fourteenth
century the guard was generally formed into a bar shape or cruciform to
protect the users hand once in battle. Oakeshott has produced the semi-
nal work on dating recovered or surviving swords by defining them (into
Types) by their sword blade construction rather than their hilt design. 58
This innovative technique, whilst not foolproof, regularly provides valu-
able information about the date of swords throughout the early to late
medieval period and their length of practical use. Generally speaking,
there were three main forms of sword, which were used in one hand, two
hands or a hand-and-a-half . This last was a compromise between the other
two types and could be used in either one hand or two and, as such, was
commonly referred to in the fifteenth century as a bastard.59 The swords
often associated with the mid-to-late fourteenth century were ofthis form
(Type XVII) and most ofthem possessed a longer grip, made for single or
two-handed use.60 Early memorial depictions tend to show a long-sword
on a low-hung girdle (perhaps indicative of a slashing, mounted weapon)
whilst later images (post 1360) suggest high-mounted short-swords.61
This could also mirror the transition that is seen archaeologically
between the Type XVI swords (c.13201350) and Type XVII (c.1360
1420).62 Far from the traditional perception, many swords before 1400
(both single and two-handed) were frequently well-balanced and finely
weighted weapons. Short swords were fundamentally cut and thrust weap-
ons, mostly with a range ofbetween twenty-nine to forty-six inches.63 Large
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 99
swords were deliberately designed to deliver savage killing blows which,
with the full momentum of the wielders body-weight behind it, could
easily dismember or decapitate. These longer swords were created in direct
response to the increasing development of plate armour and, by Chaucers
time, such large swords would not have been uncommon. Sir Thopas has
[a] long swerd by his side (Thop, B21943).
The average weight for fourteenth-century swords of a single-handed
version was between 1lb 7oz and 3lb. Such swords:
at the lower end of that range are extremely fine and light Swords at the top of
the range are still light enough that an average man can use them with dexterity and
precision.64
Unfortunately, surviving examples of larger swords are rarer and this is
reflected in the research. There is one hand-and-a-half sword from the
fourteenth century in the Royal Armoury Collection, Leeds, and it weighs
2lb 8oz. During the period of 13651425, Type XVII swords predominated,
being generally robust, invariably hexagonal in section and blade-form with
considerable variety in hilts.65 Again, for the period of Chaucers experi-
ence, there is one surviving example of a two-handed sword in the Royal
Armoury, Leeds, and this weighs approximately 3lb 10oz. The length of a
sword blade and the design ofthe hilt often demonstrated the primary use of
the weapon; a single-handed sword, for example, will have a short grip but
a two-handed swords grip can range from two to more than four palms.66
An interesting example of such a large broadsword remains in St Georges
Chapel, Windsor Castle, and is traditionally believed to have belonged to
Edward III. This would appear likely, given its provenance and associated
history. The sword type is that of a war (or tournament) sword which has,
at some time, clearly been used. As with other broadswords, it is designed
to be used with two hands and only those, one would imagine, of excep-
tional strength could attempt to use it one-handed. Of course, as in the case
of Edward IIIs sword, the most expensive weapons were tailor-made for
their owner; height, weight and strength of a knight would be taken into
account by the sword-smith to give a more balanced and effective blade. It
must be stressed that swordsmanship, in particular, was a jealously guarded
100 Gavin Hughes
military skill and not to be taught to all and sundry. Indeed, the martial
art of sword-fighting was primarily reserved for those of noble birth. Any
transgression of this most basic chivalric rule was swiftly dealt with.
Finally, there is the dagger, misericord or poignard (a late medieval
term) and this was perhaps the most common weapon of choice for many
in the fourteenth century. Exact types varied considerably with the status of
the owner and the function it was designed to perform. Thus the Franklin
has [a]n anlaas and the Guildsmen have knyves (GP, A 357 and 366).
An anlaas is a two-edged stiletto or dagger (MED).67 Knives and dag-
gers could be used as a weapon or a tool and this possible ambiguity is
illustrated by the inter-changeable terms used by Chaucer for such edged-
weapons. Indeed, just as the misericord is seen as part of a knights attire,
the boidekyn or needle dagger could be frequently associated with foot-
pads or murderers. It is the deadly weapon ofthe jealous miller, Symond/
Symkyn in the Reeves Tale (A 3960) and of Julius Caesars assassins in
the Monks Tale (B23892 and 3897).68 This has probably more to do with
the fact that such a commonly found implement could be easily used as a
weapon and just as easily concealed or discarded. They often ranged from
simple sheathed knives to more elaborate fighting daggers, ofthe type more
normally associated with a knight. Such weapons were primarily intended
to stab and, when fighting, were deliberately held blade-down in order to
parry sword thrusts. They were equally used to deliver a killing blow once
an enemy was vulnerable, as illustrated in MS. Cotton Nero E ii (part 2,
fol.152v; c.1415) from the British Library. Here, two knights are depicted
fighting on horseback; one bends his enemy forward over his horses neck
and, whilst holding his opponents head down, plunges the dagger deep
into his back.69 It is unsurprising that the short knyf is one ofthe weapons
banned from the tournament in the Knights Tale (KnT, A 2544).
Death or violent injury on the field oftournament or battle was a practical
and very real consideration. Thus to the analysis of the courtly or chival-
ric world of romance must be added a harsher background. It is the vital
context of medieval warfare that Chaucer, having served in France himself
(from 135960), knew only too well. When he writes in the Knights Tale
that the helmes they tohewen and toshrede;/ Out brest the blood with
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 101
stierne stremes rede (KnT, A 260910), Chaucer is recalling the fact of
his own experience. Medieval battlefields were sometimes little more than
charnel houses. As Prestwich notes, military obligation has proved to be
a battlefield on paper for historians, but debate on this has not always been
informed by awareness of the muddy realities of war.70 Indeed, it could
be argued that the glorious ordeals of romantic chivalric literature were
medieval societys attempt to distance the knightly class from the savagery
of medieval combat. For savage it undoubtedly was.71 It is almost inconceiv-
able how sanguine a medieval battlefield must have been. Whilst narratives
ofthe time appear to revel in gore, such accounts have always been open to
question as being fanciful or exaggerated. But, as Anne Curry comments,
this could largely be because the bloodiest scenes of medieval battles in
illuminated texts appear to the modern eye as colourful and stylized: they
do not bite home.72 However, from recent forensic and paleopathological
study ofhuman remains from fourteenth and fifteenth century war-pits, a
vivid, if quite horrific, picture ofthe carnage a knight would have witnessed
(and caused) on a battlefield can perhaps be visualised.
The excavations at Towton, Visby and elsewhere have provided illumi-
nating results. A total ofthirty-seven individuals were found to have been
buried in the Towton pit, twenty-nine of whom were discovered relatively
intact. From Visby, we have a large collection of material to suggest that
men were hit repeatedly by crossbow bolts (one skull exhibits three), pos-
sibly fired in high elevation as part ofthe hail of arrows commonly associ-
ated with such battles. Missile strikes to the bodies ofthese men must have
occurred, although evidence for them cannot be confirmed archaeologi-
cally. Although it is not acknowledged in popular tradition, knights and
foot-soldiers were well served by the medical practitioners of the day to
the best of their ability and knowledge. Battlefield surgeons were inven-
tive and, in many cases, genuinely eager to alleviate a patients suffering,
especially if he came from a noble or knightly household. A well-known
example is the English military surgeon, John Bradmore, who, following
the battle of Shrewsbury (1403), devised a special instrument which suc-
cessfully removed an arrow that had been embedded in Prince Henrys
cheek.73 At this important battlefield, work by Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver
produced evidence for several such arrowheads and one potential bodkin
102 Gavin Hughes
arrowhead, the armour-piercing ballistic projectile of its day.74 Whilst (pre-
sumably) undefended parts ofthe body often reveal evidence for soft-tissue
damage, some areas appear more vulnerable than others; at Visby ankles
and shins displayed evidence of deep cuts (see KnT, A 1660: Up to the
ancle foghte they in hir blood). It seems that an opponents blows were
not parried by either shield or weapon.75 Eleven of the Towton soldiers
demonstrated deep flesh wounds to the body, mostly to the upper limbs,
which would be consistent with injuries gained through combat. In the
case of four individuals, only their lower extremities remained in the pit.
All that remained of another individual (as far as could be ascertained)
was a disarticulated arm found at the bottom ofthe grave.76 At Visby, one
unfortunate individual had sustained such a savage blow to his undefended
legs that it had severed both in a single stroke.77
It is such intimacy ofbloodshed78 which leaves a sobering impression.
Perhaps the brutality of medieval warfare is shown by the extent of facial
and head wounds sustained by many of the men who fought in these two
battles or were cut down afterwards. Ofthe twenty-nine skulls recovered
at Towton, all but one provided evidence of some kind of wound; the rest
demonstrated blows (sometimes multiple) to the face and neck. These were
divided into sharp and blunt force trauma and suggested toe-to-toe fighting
and sustained furious assaults. Such wounds are thought to indicate that
the heads and faces ofthe soldiers were especially vulnerable in combat.79
The comparative rarity oflimb injuries here has also been taken to suggest
that these were mostly defensive wounds (blunt and sharp trauma to fore-
arms and hands etc.) and that the head injuries were effectively the coup de
grce. As with Visby, it is believed that many of these medieval casualties
were injured by assailants standing above them or on horseback. Such inju-
ries can be shown by the elderly individual (Towton 8) who was struck
behind his left ear with either a mace or war hammer, which shattered his
thin skull, or the even more unfortunate solder (Towton 40) who had
been struck in the head by an arrow and was then finished offby a hammer
or poleaxe blow to the side of his head.80 At Visby, another individual
was felled by a blow across his face which had split his skull (and mail
coif ) in two.81 Facial analysis of one individual (Towton 16) by Caroline
Wilkinson and Richard Neave revealed that he had been wounded before,
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 103
an especially gruesome injury which had removed part ofhis lower left jaw
but had left the teeth still in place. The wound had healed (as shown by
the rounded edges of the incision) and had undoubtedly left this soldier
scarred. Another individual (Towton 41) had a severe yet healed injury
to the skull caused by a sharp, bladed, weapon.82 There were similar stories
amongst the individuals recovered from the war-pits at Visby.83 Yet another
individual (Towton 32) demonstrated multiple cut marks to the side of
his skull which again, seemed to be the result of a sharp blade (sword or
dagger) being drawn across his head in a slicing motion. This has led to
some observers to speculate that the ear ofthe unfortunate man had been
deliberately hacked off or removed as a form of torture.84 Again at Visby,
similarly disfiguring injuries (either accidental or deliberate removal ofthe
nose) were noted.85
In a considered evaluation of the arming process, we need to take
account of very different kinds of evidence. Thus the arming sections of
Sir Gawain and their accompanying contemporary illustrations, whether
at Camelot or Hautdesert, show the knights armour with remarkable con-
sistency, so much so that they are an important documentary source for
the study of late fourteenth-century armour.86 Yet, when combined with
surviving examples of armour and archaeological evidence, this valuable
source is enhanced even more. Manuscript illuminations, descriptions in
literature combined with documentary sources, surviving artefacts and
associated archaeology are immensely important in giving detail to the
eras arms and armour. Given the ferocity of medieval battles, it is easy to
see why Chaucer did not go into exacting detail regarding warfare and its
preparations; his audience knew exactly what he was talking about and he
did not need to go further. Instead, he produced what Herben has called a
lightly drawn but accurate sketch.87 In a sense, we should also be aware of
the limitations of romantic chivalric literature and military history. One
may indeed notice historical trends and accuracies in the characterisation
of Chaucers Knight, Sir Thopas and Sir Gawain but, ultimately, they are
works of literary fiction. In some respects, they are no more a reflection
of medieval warfare than the novels of James Bond are to the world of
espionage during the Cold War. Yet, at heart, they both have serious over-
lapping points of contact and an underlying realism that is entirely necessary
104 Gavin Hughes
and, in itself, ofhistorical merit. Both Ian Fleming and Geoffrey Chaucer
were authors with experience of warfare in their own lifetimes; a military
experience which they drew upon and turned into convincing literary
creations. We must remember that just as Fleming served in the Second
World War with Naval Intelligence, Chaucer served in France under the
banner of Edward III. Chaucers description of bloodshed and combat,
where given, are grippingly accurate. Indeed, from our own frequently dis-
tracted perspective, he writes with an authority which is sometimes hard to
imagine. Perhaps, when considering fourteenth-century arms, armour and
warfare, we can simply hope to emulate Sir Nicholas Sabraham when he,
in turn, from beyond the time of memory learnt from old men, Lords,
Knights, and Esquires now no more.88
Notes
1 Stephen J. Herben, Jr, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, Speculum, 12 (1937), 47587
(p.482).
2 See Claude Blair, European Armour, circa 1066 to circa 1700 (London: Batsford Ltd,
1958), p.191.
3 Harness usually refers to a complete suit of armour yet, within certain contexts, can
also refer to sections of the suit, such as that for the leg or arm.
4 Thomas C. Abler, Hinterland Warriors and Military Dress (Oxford: Berg, 1999),
p.11.
5 Michael Prestwich, Miles in Armis Strenuus: The Knight at War, Transactions ofthe
Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 5 (1995), 20120 (p.201).
6 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.475.
7 Blair, European Armour, pp.5561.
8 Michael Lacy, Armour I, in Derek Brewer and Jonathan Gibson (eds), A Companion
to the Gawain-Poet (D.S. Brewer: Cambridge, 1997), pp.16573 (pp.1656).
9 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.476.
10 Blair, European Armour, pp.635, 76 and 171.
11 The battle was fought on 27 July and the dead were left for several days before
burial.
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 105
12 Richard Osgood, The Unknown Warrior: An Archaeology of the Common Soldier
(Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd, 2005), p.83.
13 Bengt Thordeman, Armour from the Battle ofVisby 1361 (Facsimile Reprint, Highland
Hill, Texas: Chivalry Press, 2001), p.186.
14 Francis M. Kelly, A Knights Armour ofthe Early XIV Century Being the Inventory
of Raoul de Nesle, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 6 (1905), 45769
(p.457).
15 David Starley, Metallic surface coatings on arms and armour: the role of X-ray
florescence analysis, Arms & Armour, 2 (2005), 199207 (pp.2023).
16 Leslie Southwick, The Great Helm in England, Arms & Armour, 3 (2006), 577
(pp.268).
17 Amongst such scholars and antiquarians are Richard Gough, Sepulchral Monuments
in Great Britain, vol. 2 (London: T. Payne and Son, 1796); Frederic Chancellor, The
Ancient Sepulchral Monuments ofEssex (Chelmsford: C.F. Kell, 1890); Joseph Foster,
Some Feudal Coats of Arms and Others (London: J. Parker & Co, 1902); Herbert
Druit, A Manual of Costume as Illustrated by Monumental Brasses (London: A.
Moring, Ltd., The De le More Press, 1906); Herbert Macklin, The Brasses ofEngland
(London: Methuen & Co., 1907) and Frederick Crossley, English Church Monuments
A.D. 11501550 (London: B.T. Batsford, 1921).
18 Blair, European Armour, pp.33 and 75.
19 Callum Forbes, Reconstructing a Knights Harness, Military Illustrated, 84 (1995),
425 (p.43).
20 Franz Kottenkramp, The History ofChivalry and Armour (n.d., ?1850), translated by
Rev. A. Lowry (New York: Portland House, 1988) p.84.
21 Ewart Oakeshott, The Archaeology ofWeapons: Arms and Armour from Prehistory to
the Age of Chivalry (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1960; reprinted and revised,
1994) p.175.
22 See Blair, European Armour, pp.5561 and Oakeshott, The Archaeology ofWeapons,
p.175.
23 Tim Sutherland, The Archaeological Investigation of the Towton Battlefield,
pp.15668 (p.160), in Veronica Fiorata, Anthea Boylston and Chris Knsel (eds),
Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle ofTowton (Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 2000).
24 Thordeman, Armour from the Battle of Visby 1361, pp.99104.
25 Kelly DeVries, Military Surgery, Medieval History Magazine, No.4 (2003), 1825
(p.25).
26 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.480.
27 Bengt Thordeman, Armour from the Battle of Wisby, 2 vols (Stockholm: Kungl,
19391940), p.179, Fig. 2, Krigare i lamellrustning och verdragsrustning/ Warrior
in lamellar armour and coat of plates.
106 Gavin Hughes
28 Christopher Gravett, The Face of Medieval Warfare, Military Illustrated, Past and
Present, No. 6 (1987), 1721 (p.17).
29 John Matthews Manly, Sir Thopas: A Satire, Essays and Studies, 13 (1928), 5273
(pp.702).
30 Sometimes also known as genouillieres.
31 Forbes, Reconstructing a Knights Harness, p.44.
32 This was possibly tournament armour, which was frequently made from leather for
mock mles or battles.
33 Kelly, A Knights Armour of the Early XIV Century, p.457.
34 Confusingly, there are three effigies of Robert Hiltons at Saint Marys, Swine-in-
Holderness; these date approximately from 1363, 1372 and 1410. All demonstrate
various forms of popular armour during our period (including heraldic devices on
the coat armour) but the 1363 Robert Hilton also has a scalloped jupon as illustrated
for Sir Gawain in the Cotton Nero manuscript.
35 Manly, Sir Thopas: A Satire, pp.7073.
36 Such as that of the Black Prince at Canterbury or Charles VI at Chartres.
37 For example, Henri II of France was fatally injured at a tournament on 10 July 1559,
when a lance splinter entered his gilded visor and pierced his eye; it took him ten
days to die.
38 Harold A. Dillon, An armourers bill, temp. Edward III, The Antiquary, 22 (1890),
14850 (p.150).
39 Southwick, The Great Helm in England, pp.402.
40 See Boutells Heraldry, revised by J.P. Brooke-Little (London and New York: Frederick
Warne & Co.Ltd, 1973), pp.15762.
41 Boutells Heraldry, pp.137 and 2078.
42 A.V.B. Norman, Arms and Armour (London: Octopus Books, 1972), p.11.
43 Caps of maintenance were specifically noble items of clothing, protecting the head
(usually in a cap of velvet) when a crown or coronet was to be worn. They were com-
monly associated with an ermine band.
44 Boutells Heraldry, pp.1556.
45 The Milanese armour (c.1390) in Churburg Castle, theTyrol, is an excellent
example.
46 Starley, Metallic surface coatings on arms and armour, p.201.
47 See, for example, MS Royal 15 D VI, British Library, fol.513, Livys History of Rome
(France, end of the fourteenth century).
48 Southwick, The Great Helm in England, p.28.
49 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.477.
50 There could be effigies or brasses in Britain of a later date which depict a shield; in
Germany, for example, the effigy of Burkhard von Steinburg (c.1397) shows one.
51 Pamela Porter, Medieval Warfare in Manuscripts (London: British Library, 2000)
p.18.
Fourteenth-Century Weaponry, Armour and Warfare in Chaucer 107
52 Shelley V. Ashley, Medieval Armorial Horse Furniture in Norfolk, East Anglian
Archaeology Report No. 101 (2002), p.1.
53 Southwick, The Great Helm in England, p.38.
54 Ashley, Medieval Armorial Horse Furniture in Norfolk, p.31.
55 Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land (London: Simon &
Schuster Ltd, 2010), p.13.
56 See David Scott-Macnab, The Art ofHunting by William Twiti, Middle English Texts,
No. 40 (University of Heidelberg, 2009) for a detailed explanation of this term.
57 Anthea Boylston and others, Archaeology and anthropology of medieval warfare:
an investigation of burials from the Battle of Towton, AD 1461, Medieval History
Magazine, No. 10 (2004), 507 (pp.556 and 51).
58 Oakeshott, The Archaeology of Weapons, p.307.
59 Timothy Dawson, A Club with an Edge: What did European swords weigh?,
Medieval History Magazine, No.15/vol. 2, No.3 (2004), 3235 (p.33).
60 Oakeshott, The Archaeology of Weapons, pp.3078.
61 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.477.
62 Oakeshott, The Archaeology of Weapons, fig. 16 a-d.
63 Dawson, A Club with an Edge, p.33.
64 Dawson, A Club with an Edge, p.35.
65 Oakeshott, The Archaeology of Weapons, p.311.
66 Dawson, A Club with an Edge, pp.35 and 33.
67 See Gerald Morgan, Moral and Social Identity and the Idea of Pilgrimage in the
General Prologue, Chaucer Review, 37 (2003), 285314 (p.296).
68 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.484.
69 Porter, Medieval Warfare in Manuscripts, p.36.
70 Prestwich, Miles in Armis Strenuus, p.201.
71 One has only to read modern forensic reports of crime-scenes or war zones where
bladed weapons have been used to get the merest impression ofthe damage they can
do to an unprotected human frame.
72 Anne Curry, Medieval Warfare, England and her continental neighbours, eleventh
to fourteenth centuries, Journal of Medieval History, 24 (1998), 81102 (p.81).
73 DeVries, Military Surgery, p.25.
74 Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver, Two Men in a Trench: Battlefield Archaeology The
Key to Unlocking the Past (London: Michael Joseph, 2002) p.54.
75 Osgood, The Unknown Warrior, pp.845.
76 Boylston, Archaeology and anthropology of medieval warfare, p.53.
77 Gravett, The Face of Medieval Warfare, p.19.
78 Curry, Medieval Warfare, p.81.
79 It is also possible that any helmets they were wearing were accidentally or deliberately
removed.
80 Boylston, Archaeology and anthropology of medieval warfare, p.57.
108 Gavin Hughes

81 Gravett, The Face of Medieval Warfare, p.17. David Scott-Macnab

82 Boylston, Archaeology and anthropology of medieval warfare, p.54.
83 Gravett, The Face of Medieval Warfare, p.19.
84 Ear-shearing was a common punishment practice; but another possibility could be Sir Thopas and his Lancegay
ear-gathering, a particularly macabre form of trophy hunting which existed from
antiquity through to the present day (for example, in the Vietnam War).
85 Gravett, The Face of Medieval Warfare, p.17.
86 Lacy, Armour I, p.173.
87 Herben, Arms and Armor in Chaucer, p.487.
88 N. Harris Nicholas (ed.), The Controversy between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert And so bifel upon a day,
Grosvenor in the Court ofChivalry A.D. MCCCLXXXVMCCCXC, vol. 2 (London, For sothe, as I yow telle may,
1832), p.324. Sire Thopas wolde out ride.
He worth upon his steede gray,
And in his hand a launcegay,
A long swerd by his side.
The Tale of Sir Thopas, B2193843

In a short preface to four invaluable articles on Chaucers burlesque master-

piece, The Tale of Sir Thopas (hereafter Sir Thopas), John Burrow remarks
on the inertia to which editors, like lexicographers, are subject for too
frequently replicating received opinions without reassessing them.1 He
could with equal justification have included critical commentators in his
rebuke, especially those who rely on long-repeated assertions about what
constitutes absurdity or comic incongruity in Chaucers poem. A typical
case in point is an essay by J.J. Cohen that describes Thopass choice of
weapon, his lancegay, as a parade or costume lance, a prop an assertion
that serves a powerful rhetorical purpose in supporting Cohens thesis
that Thopas is depicted as being more cute than manly.2 But how justified
is Cohen in describing Thopass lancegay as he does and where does his
information come from? It is not difficult to discover that Cohen is not
alone in what he says about the lancegay, for there exists a well-established
tradition of critics scoffing at this weapon on the assumption that, in a
burlesque poem such as this and wielded by a parodied protagonist such
as Thopas, the lancegay has to be inherently absurd and that it is simply
another detail among many with which Chaucer pokes fun at the poems