Fees and Services

Proof Reading
It is essential to have a second pair of eyes look over your paper prior to submission for final marking. Your work will be proof read for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and essay flow. Comments and suggestions will be offered to make sure that your document follows a clear path from introduction to conclusion.

Editing
Your essay, graduate dissertation, or other academic paper will be edited thoroughly; to ensure that it is free of common errors such as incorrect word choice or usage, colloquial language, slang, or improper noun-verb conjugation. Your document will be carefully read to make sure that any points you make are stated clearly.

Fees
Fees are determined by the nature and amount of work required for each project. Each job is assessed on an individual basis and clients are provided with a firm quote for the work which is valid for a period of thirty days.

Email: wapenshaw@hotmail.com

Peter McLaren

Testimonials

I would highly recommend Peter McLaren as a copy-writer, editor and proof-reader. During his studies leading to a BA degree, Peter took a number of units in British and European history under my direction. He showed himself to be a careful reader and researcher, and a remarkably proficient writer and wordsmith. Peter has both an eye for detail and a real gift for language.
In 1999 I employed him to proof-read and assist with the indexing of my book, Richard II and the Revolution of 1399. I asked him because for some time he had helped unofficially with proof-reading of course outlines and the reader. I was very impressed by his systematic approach. He did a thorough but very time-efficient job. He found not only a legion of misprints, but many points of ambiguity, often comical ambiguity. I would certainly use his services again, and recommend him very highly.
I am pleased to report that the book was recently reprinted as a paperback. I was invited to make any necessary corrections. There were no misprints, only a few mistakes of my own.
Michael Bennett, PhD, FRHistS, FAHA
Professor of History
School of History & Classics
University of Tasmania
------------------------------------
Yes Peter. You can use me as a referee. I have no hesitation in recommending you as an excellent editor and proof reader. You saved my skin when I could no longer see the wood for the trees. By the time you got to see my podiatry thesis I was heartily sick of it but your suggestions so enthused me that I took to it again with vigour. I won the day Yeeeaaaah.

Sarah Tombay tbrpc@hotmail.com
------------------------------------

Thanks very much for the thorough proof-reading job, Peter. Good to know there wasn't too much that needed to be altered.

Dr Fiona Walls

Senior Lecturer Early Childhood and Primary Mathematics

School of Education

James Cook University

Townsville

QLD

------------------------------------

Dear Mr. McLaren
I write to thank you sir so much for your assistance with my essay writing skills and my eventual thesis. As I told you, we are required to write in a very different manner at universities in India. Had I not engaged your services I dread to think how my grades would have turned out.
Guljar Singh, Hyderabad, India.
------------------------------------

Hi Peter,

I would appreciate if you send me a signed receipt to my address.

Thanks again for the wonderful job you and Sarah did.

Cheers,

Fredy

[Fredy Valenzuela after we proof-read & edited his phd thesis on Chilean retail banking]

------------------------------------

Peter,
Yes, I’m very happy with the paper. Many thanks for your assistance and in more than meeting my time constraints.
[For work on The forces impacting upon schools and their the public purposes (Long version)]
Bill Mulford
Professor and Director Leadership for Learning Research Group
Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania
------------------------------------
Dear Peter
Amy and I want to express thanks to you for your help. We know you had to spend more time with us than with your Australian clients and it likely was frustrating. Now we are to go home to Taiwan but I will contact you again next year for more services.
Nan Zheng
------------------------------------
Peter McLaren has been of invaluable assistance to our company both with proof reading and the writing of product placement articles associated with our client’s websites. In our experience he never misses a thing when proof reading and his articles are engaging.
Dan Garlick Ozvox Media. Hobart. www.ozvoxmedia.com
------------------------------------
Thanks again Pete for a job well done. To have described over 4,000 photographs in such a unique fashion in a couple of working weeks is quite an achievement.
Neil Cameron www.beautphotos.com
------------------------------------
To whom it may concern: Peter McLaren proof read my book Origin and Dynamics of the Universe. He picked up more than twenty mostly grammatical mistakes that two previous proof readers had missed. He also wrote me an excellent article which was used in a number of scientific ezines to draw traffic to my website. Emil. V. Cseko www.universesciencebooks.com

.

Recent books I’ve proofread and edited

.

The Ways of the Bushwalker
UNSW Press
by
Dr. Melissa Harper

Big White Lie
Chinese Australians in White Australia
by
Professor John Fitzgerald
School of Social Sciences
La Trobe University
Victoria

Richard II and the Revolution of 1399
Michael Bennett
Professor of HistorySchool of History & ClassicsUniversity of Tasmania

The Long Bow in the 100 Years War

Question: What Made English Archery so Formidable a Force During The Hundred Years War?

Any discussion among the Englishmen of today on the subject of the Hundred Years War, even for those only mildly interested in the subject, will usually call to mind the names of the three main battles, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. If asked to find a common thread connecting these battles it would most probably be that their archers won the day. Few would recall, if indeed they were ever told in school, the names of Edward III, the Black Prince or Henry V. If the Englishmen of today knows anything of the Hundred Years War it is that it took place in France, against the French and that the English won because they had the best archers and the best bows - longbows.

Before the appearance of this formidable weapon its forerunner, the short bow, had been used in the British Isles for hunting and in battle long before the Norman Conquest and probably came to Britain via Scandinavia.[1] Depictions of shortbows being used by both the Normans and their English adversaries are to be seen on the Bayeux Tapestery.[2]

By the time of the period we know as The Hundred Years War the weapon which later became known as the longbow had been in existence for well over a century. Geraldus Cambrensis who journeyed through Wales in 1188 recorded the power of the Welsh bow at the siege of Abergavenny castle which had taken place six years previous to his visit there.[3]

”… The Welsh shot at them from behind, and with the arrows which sped from their bows they actually penetrated the oak doorway of the tower, which was almost as thick as a man’s palm….”

Geraldus later mentions that an Englishman, William de Braose, told him that in a war against the Welsh one of his men was hit by a Welsh arrow that pierced his thigh, the saddle of his horse and then entered the flank of the horse itself. The rider, upon wheeling his horse around, received exactly the same treatment from the same archer to his other side, effectively skewering him to his horse.[4]

By 1252 the longbow had found its way into the Assize of Arms as a national weapon alongside that of the crossbow.[5] Mention of archers in the Calendars of the Close Rolls prior to this date, we must assume referred only to crossbow-men. In the Liberate Rolls of 1245-1251 we see the entry for April 14th 1246

“…To the bailiffs of Glouceseter. Contrabreve to cause John Malemort, maker of the king’s quarrels, to have his liveries of 7 ½d. for making 100 quarrels a day, and 3d. for his shafting and feathering them,….” [6]

Even as late as 1281 crossbow-men seem to have been paid more than longbow-men and in 1292 the crossbow was still the weapon of choice when Edward I equipped his English and Gascon archers for his Welsh campaigns.[7] It was during his Welsh campaigns that Edward came to realise the potential of the longbow after witnessing first hand not only the power of the Welsh longbows but the tactics the Welshmen of Gwent and Morganwg used in their employ.[8]

Edward was a great tactician and in his reorganisation of the army he adopted the longbow. Drawing on his experiences in the Welsh campaigns he soon developed much of the military strategy that won him victory over the Scots at Falkirk in 1298 and went a long way towards his grandson’s victory, again over the Scots, at Haildon Hill in 1333.[9]

Both of these victories saw dismounted lightly clad archers fighting alongside dismounted cavalry and were, from this point of view, harbingers of the major battles fought during the Hundred Years War. Two other tactics that came from the “Welsh connection” were honed during the wars of the Scottish succession. One was the sideways stance of the archers that presented less of a target to opposing cross-bowmen allowing more firepower per yard across the front line of battle. The other was the practice of ramming sharpened stakes into the ground to protect the archers from the horses of the enemy cavalry. At Conway in 1295 where the Earl of Warwick came up against a Welsh force:

“… The Welsh, on the earl’s approach, set themselves fronting his force with exceeding long spears, which, being suddenly turned toward the earl and his company, with their ends placed in the earth and their points upward, broke the force of the English cavalry…”

Much more could, and has, been written regarding the refinement of English battle tactics incorporating the use of archers well before the Hundred Years War but space does not here permit their inclusion.

Unlike the crossbow, which had developed with a variety of mechanical devices for loading and triggering, the longbow underwent little in the way of technical evolution or innovation from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries.[10] There was little about the longbow that could be developed. The technology was elementary, even primitive, and it remains to this day the simplest way for anyone to cast a missile a greater distance that one’s arm can throw a stone.

The most difficult part in the longbow’s production process was the procurement and selection of the wood from which it was made. The bowyers skill was not particularly hard to learn. The favoured wood was that of the Yew tree (Taxus baccatta) and therein lay the latent potential for the longbow’s great effectiveness. Bow staves were cut from that part of the Yew tree where the heartwood met the sapwood. Bows made from this natural laminate, it was discovered, would, if used the correct way around, propel an arrow much further and with greater velocity than those made from any other wood. The reason for this, whether or not known to the bowyers, is that the outer facing, elastic sapwood resisted tension and the inner facing resilient heartwood resisted compression.[11] The best longbows therefore, had two components working in conjunction to form a natural spring of considerable force.

Although the Yew tree grows in the British Isles it was Mediterranean yew which was most prized.[12] In his book The Book of Archery written in 1840 Hansard tells us that although excellent yew trees grew in Hereford, Monmouth and in the vicinity of Chepstow these trees were looked upon as a national resource and kept for emergencies. Instead Yew wood came from Italy, Castile, Tyre and Crete with the Castillian product surpassing them all.[13] Hansard, quoting Drayton, further states that subsequent to the invasion of Castile by the Black Prince,

“…the Castillians decreed that all yew trees should be destroyed, but their increase be put a stop to forever afterwards..."[14]

The longbow’s great advantage was that it was cheap and expendable. Its disadvantage was that it required a trained operative to render it an effective killing instrument in the field. So inexpensive was the longbow that in battles such as Crecy the longbow-men could discard their bows when their supplies of arrows were exhausted and take to the French with close combat weapons.[15]

An archer proficient in longbow operation did not need his own bow to be effective as a soldier. The weapon was devoid of idiosyncrasy and this allowed for a production base that needed no specialisation in the way that sword or armour production had to be tailored to fit the individual. More importantly single bowyers operating independently anywhere in Britain could produce them. By contrast, crossbow manufacture involved the skills of a number of operatives not least of which was the blacksmith. Crossbow stocks had to be fashioned by woodworkers with greater skill than that required of the longbow bowyer for they had to fit exactly the metal fittings such as the base-plate and the trigger and cocking mechanisms. Also, depending on the model of crossbow, skilled metal workers were involved in gear cutting or the manufacture of winding wheels, the shafts upon which they ran and the crank handles required to operate windlass mechanisms.

Prodigious quantities of bows and arrows were used in major campaigns such as Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt and the longbow’s simple technology allowed for production to be geared up with very short lead times provided that seasoned bowstaves were in stock. An average archer during the Hundred Years War could easily loose off ten arrows per minute and many historians have put the number at “fifteen reasonably aimed arrows…”[16]

The rains of arrows in the battles described by Froissart go to show just how large an industry English archery tackle must have been. Describing the army that left England before the battle of Crecy, Froissart mentions the number of archers present:
“…They were in number a four thousand men of arms and ten thousand archers, beside Irishmen and Welshmen that followed the host afoot...”[17]

In various accounts Froissart mentions the fact that the English shot great rains of arrows On the road to Crecy he writes:
“…. The Genoways did them great trouble with their cross-bows: on the other side the archers of England shot so wholly together, that the Frenchmen were fain to give place to the Englishmen...”[18]

In the actual battle of Crecy
“…Then the English archers stept forth one pace and let fly their arrows so wholly [together] and so thick, that it seemed snow...”[19]

At Poitiers
“…True to say, the archers did their company that day great advantage; for they shot so thick that the Frenchmen wist not on what side to take heed, and little and little the Englishmen won ground on them...”[20]

And again at Poitiers
“…but in a short space they were put to flight: the archers shot so wholly together that none durst come in their dangers: they slew many a man that could not come to no ransom:…”[21]

If the ten thousand archers Froissart describes were supplied with one hundred arrows each this million arrows was backed by no small production facility. Hardy calculates that every five hundred archers at Crecy would have probably shot off 7,500 arrows in the ninety seconds it took the French cavalry to charge, and reach the English lines.[22] A manufacturing industry that could cope with such huge demands obviously did not grow overnight and respond only to the intermittent requirements of kings military demands. It was able to respond quickly to these demands because it was there ticking over in the background all the time.[23] For an expedition in 1359 the counties produced over 850,000 arrows, 20,000 bows and 50,000 bowstrings. It would have been difficult for an enemy to emulate such a war machine involving, as it did, organizational capacity that spread right down to the farm gate where goose wing feathers had to be saved for the fletchers.[24]

The quality of manufactured archery tackle, at least in London, seems to have been self-regulating by men jealous of their crafts. In 1371 London bowyers delivered a petition the mayor and Aldermen of that city requesting that bowyers be forbidden to work at night as this practice resulted in bad workmanship. The petition also spelled out lines of demarkation and specialisation. It requested that bowyers and fletchers should not be allowed to engage in each other’s trades. In August 1416 a petition from the soon to be formed Ancient Company of Longbowstringmakers was presented to the Mayor and Aldermen of London. The document said that many archers had died as a result of faulty bowstrings and that the blame had fallen upon them. The petition requested warden inspectors with the power to inspect the work of the London longbowstringmakers.[25]

What made English archery so formidable a force in The Hundred Years War was not merely the weapon and the archer but the organisation behind both and the decades, or perhaps centuries of the longbow’s prior use in Britain. Even so, much of the military success attributed to the English archer and the longbow was, in fact, rooted in social customs as much as in military development.

In Britain archery became a source of national pride habituated over a very long period, and socialised within the community. The general disarming that followed 1066 forbade Saxon freeholders to bear knightly arms but this did not apply to the bow, which, among the aristocracy, was not a highly regarded weapon. This policy set the freeholder apart from the weaponless serf. It therefore likely instilled a sense of pride in the bow-holders who, knowing of the part the bow played (or was said to have played) at Hastings, probably regarded it with more than ordinary affection.[26] Certainly the bow came to figure large in English culture as the emergence of Robin Hood as a legendary folk hero attests.

Over many decades, steady government policy in Britain encouraged the use of the longbow in sports and competitions. Thus the crown managed to obtain a large segment of the population trained in use of the longbow, without serious revolts that might have seen the weapon used against the aristocracy. This is a reflection of England’s relatively stable political situation in the period. Compared with France England was a unified State where Englishmen thought of themselves as just that. “Frenchmen”, by contrast, had not yet come to the point in their political thinking where they regarded themselves as French first and, say, Gascon second.

For the French to have imitated the English archery war machine (there is evidence to show that they experimented with it) they would have needed large numbers of peasants training with the longbow for a number of years to bring to the field a force of militarily useful bowmen.[27] The French aristocracy would have been, understandably, very hesitant to have large numbers of peasants in arms. It would have been quite foolhardy to put lethal weapons in the hands of a dissatisfied peasantry and encourage it to practice with them.

The closest modern day analogy of the difference in suitability between arming French and English commoners could perhaps best be demonstrated by the examples of Switzerland and the Balkan States. Switzerland has a universal service militia where every adult man has an assault rifle in his home, with ammunition. He is obliged to practice regularly. This works well in Switzerland. They do not shoot each other down in the streets in large numbers. If the same system were officially enacted in the Balkans people most certainly would shoot one another. The difference lies in the orderliness, discipline and prosperity of the citizenry.
French chivalry was contemptuous of its own archers and they often employed foreign mercenary archers such as the Genoese who had a very good reputation both as good archers and professional soldiers. English armies in the Hundred Years War were essentially wage earning professional soldiers, with an effective chain of command as opposed the French system which, for most of the period, raised its armies by feudal levies.

Individual French knights were no doubt quite as skilled as their English contemporaries, but they were lacking in discipline. The success and reputation of English archery – and we must here remember that the bow is a defensive weapon – was enhanced by the French aristocratic cavalry’s gung-ho insistence on lining itself up for the slaughter. This it did with amazing regularity. The English archer sought not his prey but waited patiently for his enemy to come to him.

Having briefly described some of the social and political reasons for the success of English archery it must be stressed that the commanders, the fighting men and the weapons themselves were what actually won the battles on the day.

In the longbow the English had developed a rapid-fire weapon that could out-range the Continental crossbow. Much scholarly debate has been entered into concerning the relative merits of both weapons and some have claimed that the crossbow, at various times, out-ranged the longbow. This is quite possible because the crossbow was a weapon that, by virtue of its more complex mechanical design, was open to improvement.[28]

Although crossbows had substantially greater draw weights they also had much shorter power strokes, so the actual power developed was likely slightly less than the longbow. Nevertheless, regardless of the technical aspects, one seemingly obvious point must be made. In a war where the opening engagement takes the form of the two sides propelling missiles at each other it would seem that a distinct advantage lies with the side that can hurl its missiles the farthest.[29] On the day at Crecy it is indisputable that English longbows shot farther than Genoese crossbows.[30]

If the range and accuracy of both crossbow and longbow had been identical the rapid-fire rate of the longbow would still have made the weapon preferable for use in battle. The crossbow could be cocked in the shooting position and held there ready for action but it took so long to load that by the time a competent crossbow archer had fired two shots the longbow-man could shoot off at least six. [31]

Good leadership qualities in strategy and discipline are essential when conducting a battle where the main weapon, the one likely to do the most damage at the initial encounter, is a defensive weapon. In a cavalry charge, even if well led, the attacking knights had to concentrate their individual efforts on one particular adversary at a time. With archery the English had two very different ranges at which to conduct the battle. The initial encounter was usually by a shower of arrows falling like rain on the enemy at a distance of up to three hundred yards. This required an observant commander to see where the first volley had fallen and then direct the next volley in relation to where the enemy was standing – or moving to. Strict discipline was required on the part of the archers to hold their fire so that the “rain of arrows” could all be loosed off at the same time.[32]

As soon as the enemy came within charging, and therefore aiming, distance there would be time for the longbow-men to discharge only three or four volleys of arrows on command before they began picking off individuals and their horses. Close to hand the bow became a burden and was discarded by the archer who then entered the fray with maul and dagger.[33]

These tactics, as mentioned previously, underwent a long gestation period that began with Edward I and were so well honed by 1346 that they needed little modification for as long as the English used archery in battles.

Execution of these tactics in the field required that all archers were experienced. Generations of practice, at the town and village butts, in the conservation of energy and the correct use of weight and strength went to produce the skilled archer.[34] Three years after the Peace of Bretigny in a correspondence to the Sheriff of Kent Edward III tells him that, in the past, archery was commonly practised by all his subjects. He tells the Sheriff that the military were greatly assisted by this practice and that it must begin again in earnest before the country becomes short of archers.

“….We, wishing that appropriate measures be taken to prevent this, order that you should publicly cause it to be proclaimed that …all able bodied persons within your county should, on feast days, when there is a holiday, practice with bows and arrows, and with crossbows and bolts, in their games so as to learn the art of archery. Forbidding all and every one, on our behalf, to play at the throwing of stones. Loggats or quoits, at hand ball, foot ball or with bats, at cock fighting or with staves, or other worthless games of this kind, which can do them no good, under threat of imprisonment if they should in any way exercise themselves or take part in these activities.

Witnessed by the King, at Westminster, on 1st day of June [1363].
By the King himself.”[35]

Boys from the age of ten were taught to draw the bow and practice at the butts usually took place in churchyards after mass on Sundays. [36] It was here, on the firing ranges of British churchyards, that the skill of shooting the longbow was perfected by the time that English boys reached adulthood.[37]

The lightest bows had draw weights of around 100 lb. and the heaviest about 175lb. Such bows required years of practice to draw correctly. There was a trick for snapping such a bow "open" which appears to be analogous to weight lifters that have special tricks for pressing the largest weights - you shot "in" your bow. Hardy says that in 1967 in central Africa there were natives who could perform this “shooting in the bow”. In describing their technique Hardy says

“[This] is a perfect description of how the medieval archers of Britain drew their bows. They did their pushing and pulling from a lowered arm position, raising them to the position of the full draw, until they were framed by bow and bowstring. That is why the action was, and is, called “shooting in a longbow….”

Compulsory practice at archery was in all probability not seen as any great hardship. It took place at times that did not interfere with men’s work and had the advantage of turning the unskilled, potential foot soldier, into a semiskilled warrior. As an archer he would be entitled to better rates of pay in service abroad and would be so close to the action that he stood a good chance of gaining booty of which he would get to keep a third share.[38] It made him more employable. Many instances are on record where archers have signed on for a second or third term for service abroad during the period in question.[39]

Archery at the butts in churchyards with maybe twenty or so of one’s village companions no doubt produced an archer capable of hitting his mark at various distances and with the “quick draw” skill required for firing arrows at a rapid rate. Important though the skills of marksmanship and speed were, men still had to be taught to work in unison. Thousands of archers, such as Froissart describes as showering the French with hails of arrows, had to be taught to work in unison under a commander.

The archers who stood in line sideways to the enemy so that - unlike the crossbowmen – their acts of aiming and loading were practically as one, must have spent time practising under a commander. They were certainly no panicky rabble but stood in line waiting for the command to fire.[40] This holding back until commanded to fire bespeaks a trust in the commander and his judgement. Evidence for this massed training under orders though, is scant. It is recorded in many places that during musters at Southampton and other ports of embarkation ships would sometimes be held up for days after the archers arrived for departure. It seems probable that this time would not have been wasted and that the chance to practice with a larger body of men would have been taken up.[41]

In the field massed longbow fire had to be organised to get the maximum impact from a group of bowmen and it required specific, rehearsed formations and practices. It was difficult to get more than two or three rows of archers to shoot at a close target because they would have been in each other’s way. Froissart refers to English archers being arranged in a formation like a harrow. Despite ongoing scholarly debate over whether or not the French word herce equates to the English harrow, this seems to be an adequate description. If English archers were working in triangular formations and had long stakes driven into the ground in front of them like tines, they would indeed have looked like agricultural harrows from a distance.[42]

The reputation English archery enjoys came in large part from its use at Agincourt. However a number of circumstances favoured its cause. It was a battle in which the outcome was decided by the commanders tactical deployment of forces rather than archery skills. The St. Deny’s Chronicle suggests that the French force of 4,000 crossbow-men had been sent away and did not even participate in the battle.[43]

The French virtually forfeited the advantage of their overwhelming numbers by unwisely choosing a battlefield with a narrow frontage, which made large-scale maneuvers almost impossible. They foolishly allowed themselves to be provoked into an assault by Henry who led his troops forward into bowshot range. The main French assault, consisted of heavily armoured, dismounted knights, advancing over muddy farmland with the sun in their eyes. Lines of English archers, faced with rows of glinting armor moving forward at a snails pace, would have been very incompetent not to have caused the devastation they did. Discharging arrows at the rate of twelve or so shots per minute into such a large compressed target was hardly a good demonstration of their skills.

Then, at the decisive point, Henry ordered these lightly equipped, mobile archers to discard their bows and attack with swords and axes. English archers at Agincourt proved just as effective with hand weapons as with their bows and arrows. The incoherent tactics of the French had contributed as much to their defeat as the brilliant leadership of Henry V and the considerable skills of the English archers.

In this essay we have seen that a combination of reasons existed for English Archery’s development into such a formidable fighting force during the period. The evolution of the longbow’s development and the battle tactics that went with it underwent a considerable gestation period in the British Isles well before the wars with France.

The longbow was low tech, cheap, expendable and easy to manufacture on a cottage industry basis by people with relatively low levels of skill. This ease of manufacture gave rise to a large, decentralized industrial base spread far and wide throughout the community.[44] The stability of government in England was such that it was safe to allow the population at large to practice with longbows. This in turn allowed archery in Britain to become deeply ingrained in popular culture.

Regular - and at times compulsory – archery training developed a proficient fighting force that was “ticking over” in the background all the time and could be called to muster at short notice. More importantly the devastation inflicted upon the French by English archers was in no small way contributed to by the tactics of the French themselves whose chivalric ideals led them to consistently (some would say predictably) line themselves up for the slaughter.

Conversely I have come to the conclusion that there was something decidedly obsessive about the popular English attitude to archery of the time. The skeletons of archers from the Mary Rose show men whose bones were deformed through constant archery practice attributable to the pulling of the longbows (with draw weights in excess of 100lbs) that were found with them. For a man to deform himself in such a way takes an excessive amount of dedication over many years.[45] Again, the analogy with modern day weight lifters or bodybuilders seems appropriate.

The major battles of the Hundred Years war were almost all won with the significant contribution of the English longbow-men in defensive posture. It is interesting to speculate upon whether it could not have been used more as an offensive weapon, particularly by the French in mounted guerilla tactics.

Bibliography


Allmand, C., (ed) Society at War: The Experience of England and France During the Hundred Years War (Edinburgh 1973).

Ascham, R., Toxophilus, (London, 1868).

Ayton, A., English Armies in the Fourteenth Century in Rodgers, C., (ed) The Wars of Edward III: Sources and Interpretations (Woodbridge 1999).

Brereton, G. (ed) Froissart: Chronicles, (London, 1968).

Bradbury, J., The Medieval Archer (Woodbridge, 1985).

Calendar of the Close Rolls. Edward III. A. D. 1337-1339. (London, 1972).

Calendar of the Close Rolls. Edward III. Vol VI. A. D. 1341-1343. (London, 1972).

Calendar of the Close Rolls. Edward III. Vol VII. A. D. 1343-1346. (London, 1972).

Calendar of the Close Rolls. Edward III. Vol VIII. A. D. 1346-1349. (London, 1905).

Calendar of the Close Rolls. Richard II. Vol VI. A. D. 1369-1399. (London, 1927)..

Calendar of the Liberate Rolls: Henry III Vol. III. A. D. 1245-1251, (London 1937).

Cambrensis, G., The Itinerary through Wales and the Description of Wales, Thorpe, L., (trans) (Harmondsworth, 1978).

Contamine, P., War in the Middle Ages, Jones, M., (trans) (Oxford, 1984).

Edge, D., and Paddock., J. M. Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight (Enderby, 1996).

Fowler, K., The Age of Plantagenet and Valois: The Struggle for Supremacy 1328-1498 (London, 1967).

Froissart, J., in Bourchier, J., Lord Berners, (trans) The Chronicles of Froissart, p. 5. At http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/froissart-full.html. Accessed 26/08/02.

Hansard, G. A., The Book of Archery: Being the Complete History and Practice of the Art (London, 1840).

Hardy, R., Longbow: A Social and Military History (Sparkford, nr Yeovil, 1976).

Hardy, R., The Longbow in Curry, A. and Hughes, H. (eds) Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War (Woodbridge, 1994).

Heath, E. G., The Grey Goose Wing (Reading, 1971).

Hewitt, H. J., The Organisation of War in Rodgers, C., (ed) The Wars of Edward III: Sources and Interpretations (Woodbridge 1999).

Milliken, E. K., Archery in The Middle Ages (New York, 1967).

Morris, M. A., The Welsh Wars of Edward 1: A Contribution to Medieval Military History, Based on Original Documents (Oxford, 1968).

Oman, C. W. C., The Art of War in The Middle Ages: A. D. 378-1515, Beeler, J. H. (ed) (Ithica, 1973).

Oxley, J. E., The Fletchers and Longbowstringmakers of London (London, 1968).

Perroy, E., The Hundred Years War (London, 1962).

Verbruggen, J. F., The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages: From the Eighth Century to 1340, Willard, S., and Southern, S. C. M., (trans) (Amstrerdam, 1977).
[1] D. Edge, and J. M. Paddock, Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight, (Enderby, 1996) p. 33.

[2] G. A. Hansard., The Book of Archery: Being the Complete History and Practice of the Art, (London, 1840) p. 2.

[3] There is some scholarly debate over the question of whether or not the bows Cambrensis describes were technically longbows or lengthened shortbows. There seems to have been a transitional, evolutionary stage in which shortbows grew in length to the point where they were later classified as longbows. For more on this see J. Bradbury., The Medieval Archer, (Woodbridge,1985) pp. 11-14.

[4] L. Thorpe., (trans) Gerald of Wales: The journey through Wales and The Description of Wales, (Harmondsworth, 1978) p.113.

[5] “… wherein all holders of 40s. in land or nine marks in chattels are desired to provide themselves with sword, dagger, bow and arrow…” For more on this subject see Stubbs, W., Select Charters (9th ed.; Oxford, 1913) p. 364.

[6] Calendar of the Liberate Rolls: Henry III Vol. III. A. D. 1245-1251, (London 1937) p. 41.

[7] “In the Pay Roll of the garrison of Rhuddlan castle, 1281, we find “paid to Geoffrey le Chamberlin for the wages of twelve cross-bowmen, and thirteen archers for twenty-four days, …cross-bowman receiving by the day 4d., and each archer 2d….” C. W. C. Oman The Art of War in the Middle Ages AD. 378-1515 (Ithica, 1973) p. 119.

[8] Cambrensis tells us that south Wales was the cradle of the Welsh long-bowmen whereas
those in the north used pikes and daggers. For more on this subject see Thorpe, The journey through Wales pp.112-113.

[9] E. K., Milliken., Archery in The Middle Ages, (New York, 1967) p. 14
[10] E. G. Heath,, The Grey Goose Wing, (Reading, 1971) p. 298-305.

[11] J. Bradbury., The Medieval Archer, (Woodbridge, 1985) p. 71-72.

[12] Mediterranean yew was so sought after in Edward IVs time that he enacted a law requiring the Lombard merchants to deliver a certain quantity of yew bowstaves with every cask of Italian wine imported to Britain. It is therefore probable that they were used on the ships as dunnage. For more on this subject see Milliken, Archery in The Middle Ages, p.15.

[13] Hansard., The Book of Archery, pp. 332-333.

[14] Ibid.

14a. It is interesting to note that one of the aims of the Spanish Armada over two hundred years later was to destroy the Forest of Dean even if all else failed.

[15] The archer then, was a dual purpose operative who, upon dropping his bow, laid into the enemy with mauls, daggers, cudgels and anything he could lay a hand to. For more on this subject see R. Hardy, The Longbow in A. Curry and Hughes, H. (eds) in Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War p.170.

[16] R, Hardy., Longbow: A Social and Military History, (Sparkford, nr Yeovil, 1976) p. 68.

[17] J. Froissart in J. Bourchier, Lord Berners (trans) The Chronicles of Froissart. p. 5. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/froissart-full.html

[18] Ibid, p. 21.

[19] Ibid, p. 27.

[20] Ibid, p. 45.

[21] Ibid, p. 48.

[22] Hardy, Longbow, p. 68.

[23] In 1356 and again in 1359 Fletchers and bowstringmakers were actually conscripted on pain of imprisonment to make armaments for the king. For more on this subject see: J. E. Oxley, The Fletchers and Longbowstringmakers of London (London, 1968) p.24.

[24] Heath, The Grey Goose Wing, pp. 31-33.

[25] Oxley, The Fletchers p.119

[26] Hansard, The Book of Archery, p. 2-3.

[27] C. W. C. Oman, The Art of War in The Middle Ages: A. D. 378-1515, J. H. Beeler, (ed) ( Ithica, 1973) p. 144.

[28] Hardy, Longbow, p. 75.

[29] Although at Crecy it is possible that the Genoese crossbows could have out distanced the longbows but for their wet strings. According to Jean de Venette the Genoese crossbows actually shrank from the rain. More on this is to be found in Bradbury, The Medieval Archer p. 107.

[30] Crecy is here taken as a somewhat generic example as this holds true for numerous battles between the French and English throughout the Hundred Years War.

[31] Hardy, Longbow, p.103.

[32] Ibid, p. 46.

[33] Edge, and Paddock, Arms and Armour, p. 89.

[34] K. Fowler., The Age of Plantagenet and Valois: The Struggle for Supremacy 1328-1498 (London, 1967) p. 108.

[35] A.R. Myers (ed). English Historical Documents. IV: 1327-1485, p.1182 in Allmand, Society at War, pp. 98-99.

[36] Hansard p. 4.

[37] Milliken., Archery, pp. 19-20.

[38] Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III. Vol VIII. A. D. 1346-1349. P. 250.

[39] A. Curry and H. Hughes., (eds) Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War. R. Hardy., The Longbow pp. 163-164.

[40] Froissart in J. Bourchier. p. 27. “…'The English remained still and let off some cannons that they had, to frighten the Genoese.'] and cry to abash the Englishmen, but they stood still and stirred not for all that: then the Genoways again the second time made another leap and a fell cry, and stept forward a little, and the Englishmen removed not one foot: thirdly, again they leapt and cried, and went forth till they came within shot; then they shot fiercely with their cross-bows. Then the English archers stept forth one pace and let fly their arrows…”

[41] H. J. Hewitt, The Organisation of War in C. J. Rodgers (ed) The Wars of Edward III: Sources and Interpretations, (Woodbridge 1999) pp. 293-295.

[42] Froissart in J. Bourchier p. 38 “….At the end of this hedge among vines and thorn-bushes, where no man can go nor ride, are their men of arms all afoot, and they have set in front of them their archers in manner of a harrow, whom it would not be easy to discomfit. 'Well,' said the king, 'what will ye then counsel us to do?' Sir Eustace said: 'Sir, let us all be afoot…”

[43] Bradbury., The Medieval Archer p. 128.

[44] An order for over 8,000 bows and some 5,450 arrows in 1382 was fulfilled by no less that 28 counties. For more on this subject see: Oxley, The Fletchers p. 25.

[45] Hardy, Longbow p. 179.

Primal Religions

Question: Choose one of the constitutive features of ‘primal religion’, explain it, analyse it and critique it in terms of its role/place in the construction of an ‘indigenous’ worldview. Draw upon examples from the focus groups to demonstrate your points.

Point 4: they allow humans to enter relationships with spirits.


In answering this question in an objective fashion a major difficulty for me has been to attempt to divorce myself from my own cultural baggage. Although I do not have an identifiable religion and have lived for extended periods of time in countries where Christianity is not the dominant religion I have, nevertheless, been brought up in a Christian society. When one has been, as it were, programmed, from birth in a country where the shops are shut on Sundays, committing suicide is a sin and science has proven to one’s satisfaction that diseases can be caused by viruses and so forth, it follows that one cannot be completely objective in critiquing a primal religion.

It seems to me that Hilton Deakin too, has applied his Catholic, rationalist Christian impregnated background to the subject of primal religions as he finds it necessary to invent categories in which to place what he sees as the different characteristics of primal religions. After reading Deakin’s seven categories it is tempting to think that had Deakin returned to the study of primal religions he would have further dissected the seven into twenty or more. It seems the Western rationalist mind has difficulty coming to terms with the oneness of “primitive/primal” worldviews. However if it is necessary to understand and, ipso facto, study primal religions in a Western empirical fashion some form of dissection must be undertaken. In defining his seven criteria of primal religions Deakin has done a remarkably good job of teasing out his universal categories from a multi hued tapestry in which the colours have no distinct borders but blend, fade and merge like coloured dyes in water. Nevertheless, I think Deakin himself would admit to a little Christian, if not Catholic, colour blindness.

In applying Deakin’s categories to the Cree, Saami, Tiwi and Karen we must be careful to make clear whether we are discussing pre or post contact peoples. For the purposes of this essay I shall be referring mainly to the religions of pre contact people as the cultures of all four groups are dynamic in nature and, although basic religious tenets may be entrenched in tradition, the primality of their religions become inexorably more attenuated with each new generation.


The primal religions, which allow humans to enter into relationships with spirits, are not usually religions that have evolved or come to maturity in literate societies. They are, by and large, the religions of relatively isolated peoples who live close to and who derive their sustenance from their environments. As a result of living so close to nature, so enmeshed in the earth’s natural rhythmic order, their very environment becomes the frame of reference for their religion. So too, do their cosmogonies and hierophanies come from the environments of which they consider themselves to be an intrinsic part. (Fisher1999, 29-31).

Apart from the spirits resident within animate and inanimate objects, the spirits with which man communes and communicates may come from any place which man is capable of imagining – the sky, an underworld, the sun, moon, the very air we breathe or even be encapsulated or contained within a disease. They may be punitively and constantly malevolent or just waiting in the wings to inflict destruction if left unpropitiated. They may be permanent and benign guardians seeking at all times to look after man’s best interests but sometimes being thwarted in these efforts by other spirits more powerful than themselves. In the case of the Plains Cree and the Saami their traditions even incorporate a range of mischief-makers and tricksters who perform functions on behalf of more powerful spirits. These are often little people akin to Irish leprechauns who mean man no harm and might, for example, cast good luck spells or even present him with good luck charms.

In the spirit world of the Plains Cree were dwarfs, “… memekweciwak, who lived in river banks and sand hills. The chipped flint arrowheads which were found in many places were believed to have been made by these dwarfs. While these creatures did not appear to men in visions, they could grant powers and did function as spirit helpers. … “ (http://www.schoolnet.ca/aboriginal/Plains_Cree/part10-e.html) These are not very different from the trolls/trows which appear in Scandinavian folk tales and have infiltrated Saami folklore.[1]

Man’s relationship with the spirits in a primal religion are seen as being essential to his, and the earth’s well being and he must consult with them to ensure his survival along with the survival of all that he sees and imagines around him. This, perforce, over the course of time must develop into some kind of easily remembered, repeatable ritual. According to Mercea Eliade (1963, 31-33) it is the organic nature of their lives that lead the practitioners of primal religions to engage in these physiological acts which they view as necessary sacraments to allow them to communicate with the power/force which represents life itself.

This life force which seeps into and soaks the religious sponge that is everyday life is usually a background mental construct not strictly definable in the language of modern day Western societies where people no longer live organically.[2] It could, perhaps, be described by likening it to the mixture of gases that make up the atmosphere. They are omnipresent but unseen, they consist of the primary essence, which for humans is oxygen, but there is a whole pantheon of gases in the atmosphere all equally important to life on the planet. The trees, for example, generate oxygen but inhale carbon dioxide which, for them, is the breath of life. And so it is with the lesser gases and trace gases such as hydrogen, nitrogen, helium and argon – some of which are deadly poisons. This pantheon of gases works in harmony and in balance resulting in the planet’s ability to live, to breathe, to increase and repair itself.

So too with the spirit world, the system is larger than the combination of individual spirits (as in Gestalt theory) but all are essential to the formation of the life force even though some are “poisonous” and the poisonous spirits, like the poisonous gases in the atmosphere, collectively outweigh the useable (by humans) gases. The atmosphere is subject, from time to time, to major and minor pollutants as in the case of volcanic eruptions or naturally occurring bush fires; and the combined forces that we in Western societies know as “nature” compensate to right the balance. The spirit world of the practitioners of primal religions must also be held in balance by the performance of the correct ceremonies. These are usually seasonal ceremonies in the case of major cyclic events and small propitiatory rituals where minor (personal or family) adjustments are required.

Thus we see a kind of kinship with the world which is instrumental in creating a worldview where everything is, in some way, sacred but in which religion does not exist as a separate institution. Life itself is the permeable institution in which the religion lives. To the practitioner this fact needs no explanation as the concept is both institutionalised and socialised within the society. Holders of such a worldview have no need for a priestly intermediary between themselves and the spirits as they are themselves “woven into the same fabric” as the spirits. The Plains Indians of north America are quite at home with the thought that ordinary people can communicate with their own guardian spirits and whilst they may not view the practice as mundane they certainly see it as an every day happening. (Albanese 1981, 21-22)

The many tribes of the Plains Indians, the Swampy & the Woodland Cree and various other tribes in North America had numerous spirits to guide them and who needed to be appeased. But all had the underlying life force spirit known variously as Wakan or Wakantanka or Orenda just as the Karen have their equivalent life force known to them as the “pgho.” The Melanesians, Polynesians and many other cultures of the Pacific know their remarkably similar all pervading power as “Mana”.[3] Although this force in most primal religions can be taken to mean a collective unity of spirits, in some cultures certain people such as shamans can be imbued with a degree of it. These people act on behalf of the community not as priests but more as religious helpers and interpreters.

Shamans, in one form or another, are to be found in all four of the study groups. However, it is among the Cree and the Saami that they are the most conspicuous and they perform similar functions in both cultures. The shaman communicates directly with spirit powers whilst in a state of ecstasy and his – or in the case of the Saami it could equally be her - power comes directly from a specific spirit or spirits rather than from the all pervading life force. Two forms of shamanistic ecstasy are common to both the Cree and the Saami - wandering and possession ecstasy. In the former the shaman is transported to the spirit world whilst in the latter the spirit possesses him in this world. The shaman is called upon to normalise, regulate and adjust the balance between the community and the spirit world thus ensuring the well being of the community. The shaman is also an ordinary member of the community and his position as shaman is not a profession. Whilst he is performing his shamanistic duties his responsibilities are manifold. He/she has to be concerned with weather forecasting, conveying the dead to the spirit world, detecting when a taboo has been broken, expelling spirits, which are malevolent in intent, attracting game, curing diseases and so forth. (Grolier Encyclopedia 1995)

The spirit world among people who use primal religions, shapes the worldview of those people; the spirits in those worlds having been created or having evolved to explain the people’s ambient environments and the phenomena which occur within them. When analyzed it can be seen that although all of them are esoteric and mysterious on the surface, they all display their own forms of logic and degrees of usefulness. Further, that logic is always applicable to the specific physical environment. When viewed in this environmental context, indigenous worldviews hold few surprises. Nor are they always rigidly fixed either in time or space. A good example of this is the Karen who seem to adopt specific parts of any other religions they come into contact with which might, in some way, fit with, or be used to explain, something in their environment. Marshall (1922, 211-291) describes dozens of such incorporations from Judeo Christian beliefs to Buddhism and Confucianism. All have been incorporated in such a way as to fit in with and explain some part of an already established religion that continues to evolve.

Since Marshall’s time some of the Karen have even incorporated the thirty seven pestilential and punitive Nat spirits of the Burmese into their own voluminous pantheon of spirits which constantly await propitiation of some sort. (Spiro 1978, 40-55). Thus some groups among the Karen spend an inordinate amount of time in appeasing and pacifying spirits which require them to atone for transgressions, make sacrificial offerings and the like on pain of the infliction of some kind of spiritual disharmony which can cause, say, the harvest to fail. This multitudinous collection of gods and spirits gives rise to a fairly unique worldview in which the populace live in constant uneasiness and perturbation.

For the most part, the peoples of the four focus groups do not see a distinction between culture, religion and tradition. In Hilton Deakin’s Christian impregnated background these three things are distinct and in some way measurable. But in societies where primal religions are dominant, religion is tradition is culture. The fact that I have been unable to find a word which corresponds to the English word for “religion” in any of the four focus groups indicates that, even if one should exist, it must surely have a very nebulous meaning.

Religions that allow humans to enter into relationships with spirits have evolved to suit the mores of the people who use their environments to gain sustenance. It is no accident that spirit dances, with their emphasis on the seasonal migration of buffaloes, did not evolve in the Middle East where there are no buffaloes. Or that Christianity’s story of shepherds abiding in fields did not occur in Tiwi religious mythology. It is my opinion that the belief in, and for the people who practice primal religions the reality of, a spirit world should not be seen as a cause for wonderment. Rather, it is a simple logical construct. The minds of men are hungry for some kind of everlasting existence which cannot be obtained in the material world and the only way to acquire this “immortality” is to eventually be absorbed into an everlasting, spiritual oneness. The existence of a spirit world, and human communication with it, allows man to educe order from the unknown and the mysterious. (Wilson 1998, passim 271-296).

Reference List

Albanese, C.L. America Religions and Religion. Wadsworth Publishing Company, California. 1981.

Eliade, M. 1963, Patterns in Comparative Religion, Trans. R. Sheed., The New American Library, Inc, New York.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Britannica Inc. CD 1999. New York.

Fisher. M.P. 1999, “Religious Traditions in the Modern World” in N. Smart (ed) Religion in the Twenty-First Century, Routledge, London.

http://www.schoolnet.ca/aboriginal/Plains_Cree/part10-e.html. 12/09/2000

Marshall, H.I. 1995, The Karen People of Burma: A Study in Anthropology and Ethnology. University of Cambridge., Melbourne.

Spiro, M.E. 1978, Burmese Supernaturalism. Prentice-Hall, Philadelphia.

The 1995 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Electronic Publishing Incorporated, California. 1995.

Wilson, E.O. 1988, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Little Brown & Company, London.

[1] In the plays of the Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen, especially Peer Gynt, trolls are used as symbols of destructive instincts but this popular view of trolls does not correspond with the trolls of Saami tradition.

[2] Maybe the closest Western analogy can be found in the Holy Ghost of Christianity. In one God there are three Divine Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and all are considered to be of the one essence.

[3] “A striking similarity with mana may also be noted in the concepts of heil (good omen), saell (fortunate), and hamingja (luck) of the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples”. (Britannica CD 1999)

On Chivalry

...”In one combat Don Pero Nino was struck by an arrow that “knit together his gorget and his neck,” but he fought on against the enemy on the bridge. Several lance stumps were still in his shield and it was that which hindered him most.” A bolt from a crossbow “pierced his nostrils most painfully whereat he was dazed, but his daze lasted but little time.” He pressed forward, receiving many sword blows on head and shoulders which “sometimes hit the bolt embedded in his nose making him suffer great pain.” When weariness on both sides brought the battle to an end, Pero Nino’s shield “was tattered and all in pieces; his sword blade was toothed like a saw and dyed with blood...his armour was broken in several places by lance heads of which some had entered the flesh and drawn blood, although the coat was of great strength.” Prowess was not easily bought.”[1]

The words are those of Froissart as they appear in Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror; the quasi-religious international brotherhood which spawned, perpetuated and glorified the chronic disease of bravado which so obviously held Pero Nino within its grip, was chivalry.
During the Hundred Years War the ideals of chivalry were every bit as endemic in the minds of the knights and nobles of England as were the avaricious thoughts in the minds of the common soldiery concerning self enrichment through pillage and plunder. Self enrichment through fair or foul means though, was not restricted to those of lower rank. It was a motivating factor among English knights and nobles when it came to making war upon France and from the perspective of time it is difficult to determine whether, in most cases, chivalric honour or acquisitiveness had the upper hand.

By 1337 chivalry, as it applied to winning battles, was an old and outdated tradition which in spite of its obvious faults seemed unshakable despite numerous practical examples of its inadequacies served up to it by eastern, non Christian armies.[2] Eastern armies of the time were invariably commanded by generals who, having proved themselves in the art of warfare, graduated upwards through the ranks. Conversely, western European armies were often commanded by kings or princes who led their men into battle with an authority based on little more than ascribed status. Whilst they may have been trained in knightly individual combat they were seldom, if ever, trained in that art of generalship.[3]

At the time of the Hundred Years War, chivalry maintained that combat must be both personal and bodily in order to allow the participants to win personal fame, glory and honour. This code of conduct was so well entrenched that archers, who by the very nature of their trade fought at a distance, were held in scorn and many of the knights and nobles knew their opponents, if not personally, by reputation from battle and tournament records.[4]

At the fundament of chivalry lay a code of morality and manners to be practiced by men of noble birth and which theoretically governed their every waking moment. Its moral code was based on the assumption that religion and the prosecution of warfare were inextricably fused. A knight’s arms were handed to him from the altar in a ceremony deeply imbued with Christian ideology and symbolism. Knighthood was conferred upon him in the name of the Trinity and he took an oath to defend the Holy Church with one hand clasped on his sword which usually had a saints relic embedded in the hilt causing his vow to be recorded in heaven.[5] To the knight, God was essentially a God of Battles, the Old Testament Lord of Hosts whose aid was vital to ensure both personal safety and corporate victory in war. God would therefore grant victory to the side or the man with the most just cause in a battle that was viewed as a judicial duel on a grand scale.[6]

A prime motivator to go off to war and win glory was chivalry’s guiding spirit of courtly love which essentially involved noble men in the pursuit of other noble men’s wives and challenging all comers to single combat for the love of the lady in question. Courtly love was supposed to hold the knight in a continually amorous condition thereby rendering him the more courteous, gallant, charming, gay and polite. It was widely held to be love for love’s sake, true and physical, unencumbered by husbands and families and accompanied by the belief that only such a prohibited, clandestine liaison could have no other aim but love itself. It was therefore focused on the wife of another man.

Even the devil may care spirit of courtly love nevertheless usually followed a predictable pattern. First would come the worship of the lady to whom the knight would make a declaration of his passionate devotion which would be rejected by the virtuous lady. Our knight, if true to form, was then expected to utter oaths of eternal fealty accompanied by utterances of anticipated approaching death from unsatisfied desire. Following this would come heroic and glorious deeds and feats of arms both in battle and at tournaments which would finally win the lady’s heart - especially if he dedicated them to her beforehand. Shortly thereafter the good sir knight could reasonably expect the liaison to be consummated after which endless subterfuges would be engaged in to avoid the cuckolded husband finding out. The whole affair often ended in tragedy with the knight being killed in battle or imprisoned over a long enough period for the lady to die of a broken heart. Courtly love, while it lasted, made the knight, according to Froissart, the more valiant inspiring him to rise above himself and becoming, as he said, ”worth two men.” [7]

The fusion of the elements so far discussed, i.e. honour and glory achieved through reckless bravado in combat, religious idealism, self enrichment and courtly love came, by the time of the Hundred Years War, to mean chivalry; and if these elements were its ingredients, its outward expression at the time can be seen as the culture and code of a certain privileged class whose hereditary profession was fighting. It was an essentially aristocratic conflict which, however originated, became a conflict between two nations. That it was in large part illusory was more often than not overlooked by those who practiced it.

What we know of how chivalry operated in practice comes from a number of chroniclers; Jean le Bel, Jean de Joinville, Jean de Venette and la Tour Landry all help us piece together what we know of chivalry. However, the one man who stands above all others is Jean Froissart and this for the sheer volume of his output. Much has been written concerning Froissart’s lack of historical accuracy - in fact he never participated in a battle and often adjusted his stories to please his patrons - but nevertheless, Froissart is the one chronicler who gives us an overall picture of the way that chivalry fitted into society as a whole; its gossip, its heroes and what was sung about them. His pages are replete with the small incidental details which allow historians to get a feel for what people were discussing at the time and the general ambient, antecedent atmosphere which surrounded the events he described.

It is from the information gained from the pages of Froissart that we are best able to judge the degree to which the importance of chivalric idealism and the quest for honour were motivating factors in the Hundred Years War among the knights and nobles.
When weighing up whether or not to go on a military campaign (from both the French or English points of view) there were a number of considerations which knights and nobles needed to bear in mind. After obvious thoughts concerning self preservation these fell into two main categories; (a) would he gain honour in the eyes of his king, his peers and his lady? and (b) how much would he profit materially from the adventure?. To a large extent the outcome depended on luck of the chevauchee[8] and with no other prospects on the horizon a certain number of men simply took the chance.

Unless he was a man of exalted high birth knighthood was the most desirable station in life to which he could aspire but being a noble did not automatically mean that he was a knight. A knight had to, so to speak, win his spurs, but the knighting ceremony was too expensive for some of the squires and lesser nobles to afford. In an effort to short circuit the process some went off to war in the hope of becoming knighted in the field amidst the pandemonium which often ensued immediately before a battle. This could, on occasion, be the cause for some amusement as in the incident involving the Knights of the Hare. Richard Barber quoting Froissart tells us in his book The Knight and Chivalry that immediately before an expected battle at Vironfosse in 1338 many men were knighted by accident

....”About noon a hare was started in the plain, and ran among the French army, who began to make great shouting and noise, which caused those in the rear to imagine the combat was begun in the front, and many put on their helmets and made ready their swords. Several new knights were made, especially by the earl of Hainault, who knighted fourteen and they were ever after called Knights of the hare.” [9]

Although the quest for honour undoubtedly motivated many knights to go to war, once honour had been achieved it had to be upheld and the accusations of shame and cowardice which would have been spoken abroad had a knight not gone, were also a factor for his consideration. The honour of his whole family could be attacked once he was labeled a coward and scurrilous poems and songs written about them.[10] Sir Johan Dambreticourt, after receiving a letter from from Lord Bouciqualt challenging him to combat was unable to find his challenger and spent months traipsing all over France in a vain attempt to search him out. Poor Dambreticourt was afraid to return home for fear of being labeled a coward.[11]
Honour on the field of battle was what every knight craved and this was achieved not only through bravery but also from magnanimity in the way in which one treated his noble prisoners and in the way he upheld his oaths to those who should capture him.[12]
Bravery, as we have seen in the case of Don Pero Nino knew no bounds when a “truly honourable” knight was engaged in battle. And if the story of Don Pero Nino appears to crown the pinnacle of foolhardy bravado it pales before Froissart’s account of blind king John of Bohemia’s behaviour at the battle of Crecy. King John was a man who, like so many chivalric warriors during the Hundred Years War, loved fighting for its own sake. At Crecy, completely blind, he requested of his knights that they lead him deeper into the ranks of the English so as to attack them the harder. This they did by roping together twelve of their horses to his and together the thirteen of them entered the fray with the king at the head. They were all found dead the next day with the horses still roped together.[13] Such was the importance of the chivalric ideal at the time.

If the quest for honour on the battlefield was regarded by Froissart as the epitome of knightly virtue then for a knight to challenge another to fight for the love of a lady, whether in a tournament or outside the walls of a besieged castle, ran a close second. His chronicles give numerous examples of this. He relates how Sir John Holland received a letter from Sir Reginald de Roye offering to release him from a vow if only he would, do personal combat with him for the love of his mistress. Such was de Roye’s earnestness for glory that the letter all but begged Holland to accept. When Holland’s friend and commander, the Duke of Lancaster, asked Holland if he has accepted the challenge Holland replied...”Yes, by my faith, I have, and why not? I love nothing better than fighting; and the knight entreats me to indulge him.”[14]

In similar manner Froissart tells us that a French squire of the village of Beause advanced single handed towards an English war party and challenged all comers saying ...”Is there any gentylman among you, that for the love of his lady wyll do any dede of armes? If there be any here, I am redy to issue out, armed at all peces a horsebacke....Now let us se if there be any amorous amonge you.”[15]

It would be easy to think of these incidents as isolated and recorded by a man obsessed with the ideals of chivalry (which Froissart seems to have been) but for similar stories told by others during the period. Robert Reeps, an employee of John Paston, writing to his master narrates...”Moreover there is one come to England, a knight out of Spain, with a kerchief of pleasurance[16] wrapped about his arm; the which knight will run a course with a sharp spear for his sovereign lady’s sake, whom either Sir Richard Woodville or Sir Christopher Talbot, shall deliver, to the worship of England and of themselves by God’s grace.”[17]
That the code of chivalry during the Hundred Years War was important is evidenced by the behavior of knights and nobles when they were engaged in battles against enemies which were neither English nor French. For chivalry’s code of battle to operate effectively, ones enemy, perforce, must have been expected to behave in roughly the same way as oneself. The difference, if any, in tactics being one of degree rather than kind. Geraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) in his Expugnatio Hibernica illustrates the difference between the French and the Welsh attitudes to war ....”with them [the French], the army is an honourable profession but with us it is a matter of dire necessity...they take prisoners, we cut off their heads, they ransom their captives, we massacre them.[18] When an English army met the Irish in the field Cambrensis recounts their behavior ...”and when they [the English] stayed their hands that were worn out by striking, countless others were hurled over high cliffs into the sea.”

The knights of which Cambrensis speaks were the same men who, in France, would act within the rules of chivalry but here they were up against a different kind of enemy who did not recognise chivalry’s rules. Cambrensis, as if to justify the action of English knights hurling civilians off of cliffs, elaborates a little more on the kind of enemy he would have us believe that the English faced in Ireland when he speaks of Dairmut, an Irish leader after a successful battle...”He lifted to his mouth the [severed] head of one [English knight] he particularly loathed, and taking it by the ears and hair, gnawed at the nose and cheeks - a cruel and most inhuman act.”[19] The French and English who opposed each other in the Hundred Years War would indeed have considered Dairmut’s act inhuman.

Even so, chivalry in France as practiced by the Black Prince at the sack of Limoges where three French knights who had valiantly defended the city and surrendered in an honourable fashion were spared and indeed lauded, whilst 3,000 men women and children inhabitants of the city were put to the sword, is difficult to reconcile with chivalric idealism and the quest for honour.

Historians have never reached a generally held consensus on just how profitable war was. When attempting to determine this we usually look at the question from the point of view of the English, almost all the action having taken place, if not on French soil, in mainland Europe. From the French point of view war was not a profitable affair with little to gain except perhaps the return of land which they already considered their own - honour was more at stake. The opposing English operating on French soil brought little or nothing with them from which the French could profit except, of course, themselves. The French knights could and did make a profit from war by capturing and ransoming knights and nobles and ransom was a major motivating determinant which often tipped the scales in favour of war on both sides of a potential conflict. However, the ravaging of their countryside by the professional English warrior elite on chevauchee was a direct, devastating and highly effective attack on France’s economic base.

It is probably fair to say that every military man on every campaign hoped for some form of material profit every time he decided to go to war. Some grew rich from ransoms, some from land but according to Ayton most returned home with only enough to decorate their houses and their ladies.[20] To a certain number it brought financial ruin in cases where the knight or noble was captured and money had to be borrowed to pay his ransom. Added to this the cost of equipping himself for war with horses, armour, servants and the like was expensive. Others looked upon war as a sheer economic necessity - loot was the only pay they were likely to get.[21]

Of course, there are always exceptions and these tend to be quoted more readily. English lords occasionally drew substantial revenues from French land they acquired through battle but permanent profits from war were the exception rather than the rule.[22] The price put upon ransoms varied considerably but common sense dictated that the sum demanded bore a realistic relationship to the captive’s ability to pay. Three French lords taken prisoner by the Black Prince at Poitiers (a highly profitable war from the point of view of revenue obtained from ransoming a great number of captured French lords) were later sold to his father, Richard ll, for the sum of 20,000 pounds.

Loot, and booty taken by pillage and plunder was common. Self interest was an important stimulus to brave conduct in battle but the search for booty often hindered the pursuit of a beaten enemy and armies failed to follow through on their victories as the common soldiery stopped to plunder. It would have taken a brave commander to attempt to stop this practice once it had started.[23]

As the Hundred years war drew to a close so too did the glorious days of chivalry. The French had, at last, become militarily organised to the point where they could more than hold their own against the English who could no longer be reasonably sure that they would gain materially when they went to war against them. New weaponry and corporate battle tactics were rendering single combat obsolete and so the chance to win honour on the field of battle was fast disappearing.
However, for most of the period of the Hundred Years War, chivalric idealism, the quest for honour and how much room the thought of profit occupied in the minds of the men who took part in it is fittingly summed up by one short quotation from the pages of Froissart .
...”than the kynge tok his musters, and there sayd playnly, that his entencyon was to passe over into the realm of France, and nat to retourne agayn tyll he had made an ende of his warre, or else sufficient peace to his great honour and profit, or else to dye in the payne.”[24]

Bibliography
1. Primary Sources

Cambrensis, G. (ed and trans. Scott, A.B and Martin, F.X), Expugnatio Hibernica, The Conquest of Ireland, Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. 1978.
Capgrave, J. (ed. Hingeston, F.C.) The Chronicle of England, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1858.
de Pizan, C. (ed.Willard, C. C) The Writings of Christine de Pizan, New York: Persea Books Inc. 1994.
Froissart, J. (ed and trans. Johnes, T) Chronicles of England, France, Spain and The Adjoining Countries. Vol. 1, London: William Smith, 1852
Froissart, J. (ed Anderson G & W) (trans Lord Berner) The Chronicles of Jean Froissart, London: Centaur Press Limited, 1963.
Froissart, J. The Chronicles of England, France, Spain Etc. by Sir John Froissart, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1972.
Froissart, J. (trans and ed Sir John Bourchier, Lord Berners) The Chronicle of Froissart, Volumes. Ll, lll and V. London: David Nutt, 1901.
The Paston Letters, (ed. Warrington, J) New York: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1978.
2. Secondary Sources
Ayton, A. “War and the English gentry under Edward lll” History Today 42.5 1992
Barber, R. The Knight and Chivalry, Ipswich: Boydell Press Ltd, 1974.
Contamine, P. (trans M. Jones) War in the Middle Ages, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited, 1984.
Encyclopedia Britanica, Britannica Inc [CD] 97. New York, 1997.
Forester, T. The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis, Covent Garden: George Ball and Sons, 1887.
Fowler, K. “Froissart, Chronicler of Chivalry”, History Today 36.v 1986
Fowler, K. (ed) The Hundred Years War, Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1971.
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopaedia [CD]. Grolier Electronic Publishing. Inc. Novato, California. 1995
McRobbie, K. “The concept of advancement in the fourteenth century in the chroniques of Jean Froissart” Canadian Jnl. Of History 6 (1971)
Strickland, M. War and Chivalry, The Conduct of War in England and Normandy, 1066-1217, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Tuchman, B. W. A Distant Mirror The Calamitous 14th Century, London: Macmillan London Limited, 1978.
Tuck, A. “Why men fought in the Hundred Years War” History Today 33.iv 1983
Verbruggen, J. F. (trans Willard, S. and Southern, S. C. M.) The art of warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages, From the Eighth Century to 1340, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1997.
Items on websites
http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/texte/atx2_02.htm
http://bossa.oit.unc.edu/~falk/Xenograg/excerpts/thirty.html
http://hyw1.erudite.com/playhyw/playerwebs/hist/Chivalry.htm
http://www.lepg.org/warfare.htm
http://www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/hundred_years_war.html
http://www.unipissing.ca/department/history/froissart/knightly.htm Tales from Froissart
[1] B. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror The Calamitous 14th Century, (London, 1978), p. 63

[2] In a number of crusades Turkish horsemen were viewed as cowards by the knights who pursued them as they fled the field, only to find that they had been lured into a trap and outsmarted. The Mongols adopted the same tactics with devastating effect during the invasion of Hungary in 1241-42 where, operating thousands of kilometres from home, they so easily decimated all the armies reckless enough to take the field against them. Nevertheless chivalry clung on. Examples of this can be found in Grolier Multimedia Encyclopaedia [CD]. Grolier Electronic Publishing. Inc. Novato, California. 1995, under the headings: Mongols, Hungary, Golden Horde and Crusade.

[3] Perhaps the only comparable eastern equivalent to Chivalry was the Code of Bushido in feudal Japanese society where the feudal knight was supposed to be devout, honest, selfless, just, brave, honorable, obedient, kind, charitable, generous, and kind to women. His life was also governed by complex rituals and rules, and he belonged to a quasi-religious brotherhood. A comparison can be made by examining Encyclopedia Britanica, Britannica Inc.[CD] 97. New York., under the headings Bushido and Chivalry.

[4] Tuchman, Op. Cit. p. 87

[5] Tuchman, Op. Cit. p. 62.

[6] M. Strickland, War and Chivalry, The Conduct of War in England and Normandy, 1066-1217, (Cambridge, 1996.) p. 59.

[7] J. Froissart, (ed and trans. Johnes, T) Chronicles of England, France, Spain and The Adjoining Countries. Vol. 1 (London,1852) p. 117.

[8] These great harrying and devastating raids over French territory were usually led by great English lords such as John of Gaunt.

[9] R. Barber, The Knight and Chivalry, (Ipswich, 1974) p. 41

[10] J.F. Verbruggen, (trans Willard, S. and Southern, S. C. M.) The art of warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages, From the Eighth Century to 1340, (Amsterdam, 1997) pp. 57-58.

[11] J, Froissart, (trans and ed Sir John Bourchier, Lord Berners) The Chronicle of Froissart, Vol. V. (London, 1901). pp. 65-66. “The knight was agreed thereto. And after that sir Johan Dambreticourt sent dyvers tymes to accomplysshe their feate, but Bouciqualt came nat forward....he [Dambreticourt] was in dyvers ymaginacions on his chalenge, and thought that honorably he might nat depart out of those parts, ....he thought that the Frenchmen wolde saye that he departed for feare.”

[12] When the French king John was released from imprisonment in England in 1363 one of his sons was left as hostage for payment of the ransom. When the son broke his parole John felt honour bound to return to captivity. From J, Froissart, (ed Anderson G & W.) (trans Lord Berner) The Chronicles of Jean Froissart, (London, 1963), p. 144.

[13] Tuchman, op. Cit. P664. Tuchman also states on page 88 that king John’s crest of three ostrich feathers with the motto “ich dien” was taken by the Prince of Wales and attached to his title thereafter.

[14] J. Froissart, The Chronicles of England, France, Spain Etc. by Sir John Froissart, (London, 1972), p. 375. Here Froissart tells us that the combat requested by de Roye is very specific: “to tilt with him 3 courses with the lance...three attacks with the sword, three with the battle-axe and three with the dagger.”

[15] J. Froissart, (trans and ed Sir John Bourchier, Lord Berners) The Chronicle of Froissart, Vol. lll (London, 1901). p 149. Again this was a specific challenge - to run three courses with the spear, three strokes with the axe and three strokes with the dagger.

[16] A scarf or embroidered handkerchief given to him by his lady and which, in her honour, he wore tied to his arm.

[17] The Paston Letters, (ed. Warrington, J) (New York, 1978), p. 3. In Froissart, op. Cit. Bourchier & Berners, p. 301 we see an English knight, one Peter Courtney, journeying around France challenging all Frenchmen to fight him and complaining to the countess of St. Poule that he could find none.

[18] G. Cambrensis, G. (ed and trans. Scott, A.B and Martin, F.X), Expugnatio Hibernica, The Conquest of Ireland, (Dublin, 1978) p. 144.


[19] Cambrensis. Op. Cit. p. 37.
[20] A. Ayton, “War and the English gentry under Edward lll” History Today 42.5 1992. p. 36

[21] Barber. Op. Cit. p. 205.
[22] Ibid,. p. 36.

[23] Verbruggen. Op. Cit. p. 54.

[24] J. Froissart, (trans and ed Sir John Bourchier, Lord Berners) The Chronicle of Froissart, Vol. ll (London, 1901). p. 36.