Osprey - General Military - Knight - The Warrior and ... - Brego-weard

The same links between knightly status and arms and armour were made in
bureaucratic circles. Documents such as Henry lis 'Assize of Le Mans' and Assize of
Arms', drawn up in 1180 and 1181 respectively, and similar legislation drawn up
elsewhere in Europe, laid out the equipment expected of warriors turning out at
the king's behest. The amount and quality of armour was based upon their annual
income, in order to ensure that there were sufficient equipped men to serve the monarch 's
needs. For example, in the 1181 Assize a freedman with property and rents valued at
£16 (£166,000 / $265,000) was expected to have the archetypal knightly equipment
ot helmet, hauberk, lance and shield, whilst one with rents and chattels valued at £10
(£100,000 / $160,000) was only expected to turn out with a cheaper habergeoun (a shirt
of mail shorter in length and sleeves than a hauberk), an iron cap and lance. After
recruitment switched from demanding service as a duty to indenting for it at a price
(a process which was complete in England by the mid-Mth century), the documents still
insist that the hired soldier appear properly mounted and equipped, 'covenablement
mountez et apparaillez', and captains would insist that their retinue arrive at muster
properly equipped to avoid reproach. There are occasrons where men were re-classified
by royal officials at muster because their equipment did not meet the standard expected
of a man-at-arms, with a reduction in wages and presumably a loss of face too.
A further indication of the link between status and equipment comes from the
disciplinary codes, or Ordinances, that were drawn up belore the onset of a campaign.
Concerned with the maintenance of order and good discipline during the course of
the campaign, they cover such matters as the order of march, the selection and layout
of encampments and billeting of troops, theft within the army and looting, ransoms
and the spoils of war. For the man-at-arms one of the most common punishments
was the forfeiture of his horse and harness to the Crown. Such a punishment not
only imposed a financial hardship, the equipment and mount representing a
considerable investment, but it also took away the outward symbols of the man-at-
arms' status, reducing him to the ranks of the footsoldier.
Of course some of the developments in arms and armour were purely cosmetic.
Certain shapes or forms, more or less practical, became popular and their use spread
across Europe. The German Kiutenbrust of the first half of the 15th century, with its
box-like breastplate and the forward-sloping nasal helm mentioned above, appear to
have been wholly driven by fashion, whilst the fluting of the gothic harness was a
combination of practical metallurgy, the effect serving to make the plates stronger
without increasing weight, as well as making the armour pleasing to the eye and
following architectural styles popular at the time.
The decoration of armour with gilding and parnting was another means by which
armour transcended the purely practical, although the habit of painting or even
ARMS AND ARMOUR •*}*•
55