When medieval intellectuals talked about the structure of Western European society, they often referred to various “orders” which defined the privileges and duties of Christian men and women. One of these orders was the “Order of Chivalry” which supposedly included all those who were entitled to use violence in a good cause. Of course, the Order of Chivalry was an ideal construct, not an organized body. It had no founding charter, no defined leadership and its members were not necessarily dubbed knights. At the same time those members were expected to have and use knightly weapons, effective armor, and sufficient horses. Those who met that qualification were supposed to be of gentle background and moderate their use of violence by practicing various virtues, which together constituted “chivalry.”
Medieval writers like Ramon Llull and Geoffroi de Charny were really interested in the problems of chivalry, and wrote about them, but surely few working knights and men-at-arms read those treatises and tried to live according to their structures. Many of the warriors on the battlefield, or in the castle fortifications, or even in royal courts were far from being the ideal knight.
Advertisement
It was always the case that kings and lords used men, tactics and weapons that were not part of the assemblage of the ideal knight. This was particularly true in the late Middle Ages, as traditional sources of recruiting dried up because of a shrinking population as well as significant social and political changes. Many fewer men at arms of gentle background were available, replaced by men who had a dubious claim to membership in order of chivalry.
There were a lot of differences between old armies made up of traditional gentle knights and those who were created or motivated by newer methods. Here are two types of soldiers who attained prominence in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Advertisement
Soldiers for pay
A lot of new soldiers were motivated by money rather than by traditional expectations of service to a lord. Mercenaries were not as a rule noted for their loyalty. Even if these soldiers might be fighting for their own king, they were unenthusiastic about fighting unless the pay was promptly handed over. If it wasn’t, these fickle companies took collections into their own hands. Many were commoners though it soon was the case that quite a few of the paid soldiers were traditional fighting aristocrats.
Revolutionaries
The 14th and 15th centuries saw a number of revolts motivated by what peasants, artisans, merchants and ordinary workers against their aristocratic rulers. The rebels rejected noble rule and asserted their independence. Students of the Order of Chivalry had formerly visualized its members as drawn from the gentry or aristocracy, whose duty it was to defend (and not abuse) the other orders, namely the clergy and the workers. But commoners increasingly rejected their subordination. Disillusioned by the failures of traditional warriors, they picked up weapons and fought for their interests, just as the “order of chivalry” did.
One of the most famous revolts was the Jacquerie (1358), which started when the commoners in Northern France became convinced that their defeated nobles had run away during the Battle of Poitiers. A generation later in 1381, when rebels in England, outraged by corrupt clergy and officials and ineffective warriors, demanded a sweeping reform that would make the king sole ruler and replace the bishops of England by a single prelate. A similar perception of corruption in Bohemia and Moravia turned the Czechs against “carpetbagger” clerics from France and Italy, against their king and the pope, and against German-speaking townsmen. The resulting Hussite Wars (1419-1434) were much larger and longer-lasting than the others.
Major revolts and minor ones gave smaller groups the opportunity to plunder the countryside, as in the humorous-sounding story of the “Porkers” of Flanders, as told by Jean Froissart:
Advertisement
At this period, there were a set of vagabonds who had taken refuge in the wood of la Respaille, and had fortified themselves in a house so strongly that it could not be taken. … they robbed and pillaged any one who fell in their way. The subject of universal conversation was these Porkers of la Respaille,…They did much mischief and these pillagers were supported by Ghent. Under their countenance they committed many murders and robberies: they entered Hainault, from whence they dragged people out of their beds, and carried them to their fort, when they ransomed them, and thus made war on all mankind.
I doubt that few of their neighbors saw the Porkers as anything more than routiers (highwaymen), but maybe they saw themselves as free men. They certainly were anxious to be paid or paid off by someone.
Steven Muhlberger, before his recent retirement from Nipissing University, studied and taught Late Antiquity, the history of democracy, Islamic history, and chivalry. His most recent scholarly works include the “Deeds of Arms Series” published by Freelance Academy Press. He hopes to soon publish an English translation of The Chronicle of the Good Duke Louis II of Bourbon.
By Steven Muhlberger
When medieval intellectuals talked about the structure of Western European society, they often referred to various “orders” which defined the privileges and duties of Christian men and women. One of these orders was the “Order of Chivalry” which supposedly included all those who were entitled to use violence in a good cause. Of course, the Order of Chivalry was an ideal construct, not an organized body. It had no founding charter, no defined leadership and its members were not necessarily dubbed knights. At the same time those members were expected to have and use knightly weapons, effective armor, and sufficient horses. Those who met that qualification were supposed to be of gentle background and moderate their use of violence by practicing various virtues, which together constituted “chivalry.”
Medieval writers like Ramon Llull and Geoffroi de Charny were really interested in the problems of chivalry, and wrote about them, but surely few working knights and men-at-arms read those treatises and tried to live according to their structures. Many of the warriors on the battlefield, or in the castle fortifications, or even in royal courts were far from being the ideal knight.
It was always the case that kings and lords used men, tactics and weapons that were not part of the assemblage of the ideal knight. This was particularly true in the late Middle Ages, as traditional sources of recruiting dried up because of a shrinking population as well as significant social and political changes. Many fewer men at arms of gentle background were available, replaced by men who had a dubious claim to membership in order of chivalry.
There were a lot of differences between old armies made up of traditional gentle knights and those who were created or motivated by newer methods. Here are two types of soldiers who attained prominence in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Soldiers for pay
A lot of new soldiers were motivated by money rather than by traditional expectations of service to a lord. Mercenaries were not as a rule noted for their loyalty. Even if these soldiers might be fighting for their own king, they were unenthusiastic about fighting unless the pay was promptly handed over. If it wasn’t, these fickle companies took collections into their own hands. Many were commoners though it soon was the case that quite a few of the paid soldiers were traditional fighting aristocrats.
Revolutionaries
The 14th and 15th centuries saw a number of revolts motivated by what peasants, artisans, merchants and ordinary workers against their aristocratic rulers. The rebels rejected noble rule and asserted their independence. Students of the Order of Chivalry had formerly visualized its members as drawn from the gentry or aristocracy, whose duty it was to defend (and not abuse) the other orders, namely the clergy and the workers. But commoners increasingly rejected their subordination. Disillusioned by the failures of traditional warriors, they picked up weapons and fought for their interests, just as the “order of chivalry” did.
One of the most famous revolts was the Jacquerie (1358), which started when the commoners in Northern France became convinced that their defeated nobles had run away during the Battle of Poitiers. A generation later in 1381, when rebels in England, outraged by corrupt clergy and officials and ineffective warriors, demanded a sweeping reform that would make the king sole ruler and replace the bishops of England by a single prelate. A similar perception of corruption in Bohemia and Moravia turned the Czechs against “carpetbagger” clerics from France and Italy, against their king and the pope, and against German-speaking townsmen. The resulting Hussite Wars (1419-1434) were much larger and longer-lasting than the others.
Major revolts and minor ones gave smaller groups the opportunity to plunder the countryside, as in the humorous-sounding story of the “Porkers” of Flanders, as told by Jean Froissart:
At this period, there were a set of vagabonds who had taken refuge in the wood of la Respaille, and had fortified themselves in a house so strongly that it could not be taken. … they robbed and pillaged any one who fell in their way. The subject of universal conversation was these Porkers of la Respaille,…They did much mischief and these pillagers were supported by Ghent. Under their countenance they committed many murders and robberies: they entered Hainault, from whence they dragged people out of their beds, and carried them to their fort, when they ransomed them, and thus made war on all mankind.
Steven Muhlberger, before his recent retirement from Nipissing University, studied and taught Late Antiquity, the history of democracy, Islamic history, and chivalry. His most recent scholarly works include the “Deeds of Arms Series” published by Freelance Academy Press. He hopes to soon publish an English translation of The Chronicle of the Good Duke Louis II of Bourbon.
Click here to read his column Tales from the Hundred Years’ War
Top Image: BL Royal 20 C VII fol. 133
Related Posts
Subscribe to Medievalverse