05-31-2009, 07:50 AM
Quote:I mostly share Matthew's views here. Common soldiers wore body armour, a helmet, and maybe one more item of armour, because it was affordable, not too heavy on the march, and gave them a good chance of surviving wounds in combat.
Very true. To provide comparative exampes:
We have several sets of laws preserved from the 13th century in Norway regarding the equipment nobles, men-at-arms, and the leidang naval levies were supposed to bring to the muster. The King's Mirror (c.1250) says that a well-equipped noble, besides his horse and arms and whatnot, should have a full suit of textile armour close to the body, covered by a full suite of maille. On his head, he should have a helmet (he is advised to own two, as I recall; a closed one for mounted and a "Stálhufvu" (Steel Head/Cap) open-faced helmet for dismounted warfare). He should have a coat-of-plates on his torso (under the maille, in fact) and a thick textile torso armour on top. That's one heavily armoured noble!
In the Laws and Ordinances govering the King's Hird of the 1290s, there are five classes of man-at arms:
The skutilsvein (often translated knight since they are often in later sources referred to as knights, equally often translated as man-at-arms, likely more correctly as he does not need to be an actual noble) is required to have, as a minimum, "full harness": textile armour, full maille, barrel helmet and/or open helmet, and coat-of-plates.
The hirdman (often translated man-at-arms) is required to have, as a minimum a textile armour tunic covered by either maille armour or another, thicker textile armour such as the one described in the king's mirror, and a open helmet.
The guest (light infantry also serving as secret police) is required to have at least "strong" textile armour and open helmet.
The kjertesvein (squire, lit. "candle-boy"/"candle-man") , a noncombatant, is required to be equipped as the guests.
In the Laws of the Land of Norway (that was legalized by the assembly in 1274, although older, less detailed laws date back to the 11th century), the levies are divided into wealth classes, where the poorest are not required to bring armour at all, the next richer required to own open helmets, the next richer requried to own open helmets and "strong textile armour" and the wealthiest (this is not the truly rich, who often paid for a replacement professional to go in their stead to the muster, only the well-to-do commoner) required to bring open helmets and maille (likely with textile armour beneath).
The hirdmen all are supposed to have bucklers and "good shields" plus sword and/or hand axe, spears and a crossbow or warbow. Only the poorest levies gets away with bringing only shield and hand axe; the rest must bring spears, "red shields" and swords or hand axes. Fully half the militia are required to bring bows (the regulations for the bows are under the organizatorial section covering ship's companies, supply and ordering of row benches).
Now a hirdman, the professional soldier, is not required to (although he of course can get more - the king, bishop or noble whose retinue he belongs to seems to have provided the basic required equipment of him) be much more heavily armoured than a roman legionaire: helmet and body armour, in addition to the shield, buckler (for guard duty and light infantry work), sword and/or hand axe, warbow or crossbow and spear (sometimes 2) he is required to have to qualify for the hird. The same thing applies for the wealthier leidangsman. We have several images and written sources where the hirdmen (the term is ambigeous as all the members of the hird are technically hirdmen, but it is used in other instances as well) are equipped with more armour (and weapons, the medieval norse still loved them that "broad" two-handed axe), but the codified demand is the "minimum entry".
While there are few medieval laws (or indeed, levy laws preserved anywhere until recently) as detailed as this, the snippets we have from elsewhere in latin territories give the same impression, especially in the poorer kingdoms, marcher territories with a population militarized above even the usual standard, or city-republics where they were dependent on militia or levies to fill out the ranks. Increasingly, the equipment of the infantrymen get heavier, and in the latter part 14th century, as the ferrous metals production rises, you can often see continental images of for example mercenary companies of infantry decked out in fully covering armour. It is only with the advent of firearms that armour is rolled back, seemingly, although many 17th century infantrymen are often seen wearing armour to a level a well-equipped high medieval or late medieval infantryman would have recognized.
Quote:Medieval knights had more money, and servants and pack-horses to carry their armour, so they wore more of it.
It is of course also a matter that sometimes, high and late medieval infantry would fight as "dragoons", riding to battle and dismounting before combat. 100 years war chevauchée raids are just one example. This became increasingly common in the later 14th century, but I know of a french 12th century poem describing the order of march of an army, where a large proportion of the infantry are mounted (many as outriders), spanish marcher warfare accounts where you see the same, and anglo-norman warfare with infantry riding to battle and dismounting. I also know a 13th century winter campaign description from the saga of king Haakon IV, where the king sends an expedition to root out a nest of rebels: in addition to the cavalry, the infantry are either mounted on horses (with snowshoes!) or transported in horse-drawn sleds, and some other norwegian civil war descriptions where the leaders decide against ship travel (the usual transportation method of medieval norwegian armies) because their enemies are dominating the sea-lines, and instead mount up and travel cross-country with their best troops, infantry and cavalry all.
[Ah well. My promise broken. Gargantuapost again]
