Anyone who has read Froissart has noted the quite frequent accounts of axes in the hands of men at arms. This is not just limited to Froissart, and many works that cover the second half of the 14th century will note just how common axes are used; and to be frank, this is quite strange. While you will find accounts of axes being used both prior and after this period, when compared to the status, frequency, and their use in this period, a stark difference can plainly be seen; and of these three, I will mostly focus on the last.
From the sources, we see these axes used from horseback, as well as used in one hand or two. We hear them called short, used after the spears in the melee along with swords; sometimes, explicitly where shortened lances could not be used. the aforesaid swords. And furthermore, we read of them being worn at the neck, waist, and back. So with this information, it is probable that these are not just the 5-7 foot long pollaxes in the 15th and 16th centuries. A weapon that is long enough to be used in both hands conveniently, and long enough to logically be worn at the neck; but also short enough that it can be worn at the girdle, used from horseback, and used in one hand leaves us with, in my opinion, a narrow range for its possible length; perhaps 2.5 to 3.5 feet (0.75 - 1 meter), give or take some. For perspective, Pietro Monte's hammer, which he wants you to take occasionally in two hands, is 4 palms in length, or 2.67 feet long (0.81 meters); and the 15th century manuals often want the armored fighter to hold his axe by the middle, at half axe; with a 5 foot long pollaxe, its practical reach when held like this probably would not have been much greater than this hypothetical short-ish axe. The sword, when held like an axe (by the blade) and striking with the cross or pommel, would likewise be similar in this regard.
The earliest battle in Froissart's chronicle where the axes are mentioned with some depth is Neville's Cross (1346), and these were in the hands of the Scots:
"When the battalions were got into close combat, the engagement was sharp, and well fought. The battle began about nine o'clock, and lasted until noon. The Scots had very hard and sharp axes, with which they dealt deadly blows; but at last the English gained the field, though it cost them dear by the loss of their men."
The next was Auray (1364).
"A LITTLE before eight in the morning, the two armies advanced near to each other. It was a very fine sight, as I have heard those relate who saw it; for the French were in such close order that one could scarcely throw an apple among them, without its falling on a helmet or lance. Each man at arms carried his spear right before him, cut down to the length of five feet; an axe, sharp, strong and well steeled, with a short handle, was at his side, or hung from his neck. They advanced thus handsomely a foot's pace, each lord in array and among his people, with his banner or pennon before him, well knowing what they were to do. On the other hand, the English were drawn up in the handsomest order."
We see again that they are sharp, so seemingly not falcon beaks but "true" axes. Likewise, we see that they were armed with shortened lances (in Froissart, they are shortened to 5 feet all but once, where they are shortened to 6 feet instead; these being Auray, Poitiers, Calais, St. Valery, and Nugent sur Seine, and 6 feet at Brignais) in addition to their axes, and these axes were bore at their necks or waist.
Wearing axes at the neck is mentioned as early as the 12th century by John of Worcester, for an event in 1040:
"However, Godwine, to regain his friendship, gave the king a skilfully made galley, with a gilded prow or beak, furnished with the best tackle, well equipped with suitable arms and eighty picked soldiers. Each one of them had two golden armlets on his arms, weighing sixteen ounces, was clad in a triple mail hauberk, with a part-gilded helmet on his head, was girt about the loins with a sword with gilded hilts; a Danish axe bound with gold and silver hung from his left shoulder; in his left hand was a shield with gilded boss and studs, in his right a spear called an ætgar in English."
This too was in addition to the shield and spear he carried, but I digress.
Back to Froissart, on Roosebeke (1382), he writes:
"But the van and rearguards pushed forward, and, by inclosing the Flemings, straitened them much. Upon the two wings these men at arms made their attack and, with their well-tempered lances of Bordeaux, pierced through their coats of mail to the flesh. All who were assailed by them drew back to avoid the blows, for never would those that escaped return to the combat: by this means, the Flemings were so straitened that they could not use their staves to defend themselves. They lost both strength and breath, and, falling upon one another, were stifled to death without striking a blow.
Philip von Artaveld was surrounded, wounded by spears, and beaten down, with numbers of the Ghent men, who were his guards. When Philip's page saw the ill success of his countrymen, being well mounted on his courser, he set off, and left his master, for he could not give him any assistance, and returned towards Courtray, on his way to Ghent. When the Flemings found themselves inclosed on two sides, there was an end to the business, for they could not assist each other. The king's battalion, which had been somewhat disordered at the beginning, now recovered. The men at arms knocked down the Flemings with all their might. They had well sharpened axes, with which they cut through helmets and disbrained heads others gave such blows with plommees [lead mauls] that nothing could withstand them. Scarcely were the Flemings overthrown before the pillagers advanced, who, mixing with the men at arms, made use of the large knives they carried, and finished slaying whoever fell into their hands, without more mercy than if they had been so many dogs. The clattering on the helmets, by the swords, axes, plommees, and mallets of iron, was so loud, that nothing else could be heard for the noise."
The French men at arms took the shock of the Flemish pikemen, so while it is not explicit, they were probably on foot, as was their custom. Now we see lead and iron mallets used next to the axes, so very likely, in my opinion, these were the same length and served the same purpose. Indeed, we find men at arms fight using both these axes and mauls from horseback in Froissart's Chronicles.
"They charged each other, thrusting their spears with all their strength, and, to add greater force, urged them forward with their breasts. The combat was very equal; and for some time none were struck down, as I heard from those present. When they had sufficiently used their spears, they threw them down, and with axes began to deal out terrible blows on both sides."
And here at Marteras (1383), we again see them used after the lances are done with.
And at Aljubarrota (1385):
"During all this time the French were fighting; and those knights and squires who had been able to dismount performed many gallant deeds, for, when their lances were broken, they used their axes, and with them gave such desperate blows on the helmets of all who opposed them, that wounds, if not death, were the consequences."
And on the Scots:
"With the use of the bow the Scots are little acquainted; but they sling their axes over their shoulders, and, when engaged in battle, give deadly blows with them."
Here the axe is used in both hands, during the battle of Otterburn (1388).
"The earl of Douglas, who was of a high spirit, seeing his men repulsed, seized a battle-axe with both his hands, like a gallant knight, and, to rally his men, dashed into the midst of his enemies, and gave such blows on all around him, that no one could withstand them, but all made way for him on every side; for there were none so well armed with helmets or plates but that they suffered from his battle-axe."
But during the rout of the battle, an individual uses his axe in one hand, which according to Froissart, the Scots were accustomed to use them like that (although as seen above, they did not always use them like that).
"I will say something of sir Matthew Redman, who had mounted his horse to escape from the battle, as he alone could not recover the day. On his departure, he was noticed by sir James Lindsay, a valiant Scots knight, who was near him, and, through courage and the hope of gain, was desirous of pursuing him. His horse was ready, and leaping on him with his battle-axe hung at his neck, and spear in hand, galloped after him, leaving leaving his men and the battle, and came so close to him, that he might, had he chosen, have hit him with his lance; but he said, Ha, sir knight, turn about it is disgraceful thus to fly: I am James Lindsay; and, if you do not turn, I will drive my spear into your back. Sir Matthew made no reply, but stuck spurs harder into his horse than before. In this state did the chase last for three miles, when sir Matthew's horse stumbling under him, he leaped off, drew his sword from the scabbard, and put himself in a posture of defence. The Scots knight made a thrust at him with his lance, thinking to strike him on the breast; but sir Matthew, by writhing his body, escaped the blow, and the point of the lance was buried in the ground, and there remained fixed. Sir Matthew now stepped forward, and with his sword cut the spear in two.
Sir James Lindsay, finding he had lost his lance, flung the shaft on the ground, and, dismounting, grasped his battle-axe, which was slung across his shoulder, and handled it with one hand very dexterously, for the Scots are accustomed thus to use it, attacking the knight with renewed courage, who defended himself with much art. They pursued each other for a long time, one with the battle-axe and the other with the sword, for there was no one to prevent them; but, at last, sir James laid about him such heavy blows, that sir Matthew was quite out of breath, which made him surrender..."
Leaving Froissart and coming to Fernão Lopes, we explictly see a case at Aljubarrota (1385), where the shortened lances were too long to be used in the melee, while the axes were short enough:
"If you find it written that at this stage the Castilians cut their lances shorter than when they brought them, you should consider it to be true and have no doubts about it, because many of them, though expecting to fight on horseback, when once they saw that the battle was being fought on foot, cut down their lances so as to wield them to better advantage, an act that was to bring them more trouble than benefit.
Once they had let fly their lances, which caused little havoc to either side, and many of them heaped up in a trench between the two battle lines, they resorted to axes and swords. These swords were not as big as those used nowadays but were thick and narrow and known as estocs.
[...]
The King of Portugal, on seeing his vanguard broken open and the constable in such a tight spot, was greatly worried, as were all those with him, and charged ahead at all speed with his banner, crying out with mighty valour, Forward, my lords, forward! For Saint George, for Saint George! For Portugal, for Portugal! I am your king! As soon as he reached the spot where the harsh and unremitting struggle was taking place, with lances abandoned as of little use in such a mêlée, he began to strike out with his battleaxe with such lack of restraint and such determination as though he were a mere knight anxious to win renown. Álvaro González de Sandoval chanced to attack him; he was a comely and well-built young man and a valiant knight who had married that very year. When the king raised his axe and brought it down to smite him, he parried the blow, seized the axe and yanked so hard that he tore it from his hands and brought the king down on both knees. He was, however, at once lifted to his feet. When Álvaro González raised the axe to strike him with it, the king awaited the blow and seized the axe back from him in the same way. When the king was trying to strike at him again, however, the young man already lay dead, slain by others present who had not managed to do so more swiftly, because each man had to look after himself."
Regarding Najera (1367), the author of the Chronique des Quatre Premiers Valois seems to have portrayed this axe as being a French weapon, whereas the Portuguese fought with swords instead.
"When the said French, Normans, and Bretons were attacked with swords, they fought back with axes."
Accounts of axes being used are by no means rare in Iberian texts, but they do seem to have been at least less common in the accounts than in, say, Froissart (at least those that were seen as being roughly equivalent to swords, I mean).
"During this time, the first battalion, commanded by the duke of Lancaster, sir John Chandos, and the two marshals, sir Guiscard d’Angle and sir Stephen Cossington, was warmly engaged with that of sir Bertrand du Guesclin and the other knights from Arragon and France. Many valorous actions were done; and each tried his strength to open a passage through the enemy. Several fought with their spears in both hands, with which they dealt about lustily their blows; others made use of short swords and daggers. At the commencement the French and Arragonians made a desperate resistance, and gave the good knights of England much trouble."
As seen above, Froissart makes no mention of axes at Najera, but Chandos Herald and Pedro López de Ayala do.
And further, John Chandos, who was said to have used an axe at Auray by Froissart, was using a two handed sword at Najera some three years later according to Chandos Herald:
"At one time that day Chandos was thrown to the ground; upon him fell a Castilian, great in stature-by name Martin Fernández [Martins fferantz] — the which was at great pains that he might slay him, and wounded him through the vizor. Chandos, of bold mien, took a dagger from his side, and struck therewith the Castilian so that he thrust the sharp blade into his body. The Castilian stretched himself out dead, and Chandos leapt to his feet. He grasped his sword with both hands and plunged into the fray, which was fierce and terrible and marvellous to behold. He who was struck by him might be certain of death."
After 1400, accounts of axes short enough to be worn seem to be slight, but perhaps not nonexistant. Coming to Wauvrin, who, in regards to a battle in 1421, writes of a man at arms who used an axe in both hands while mounted:
"And albeit that the nobles and great lords who had remained with the duke had all behaved valiantly all that day, among the rest it is fit to speak of John Villain, a noble man of the country who had that day been made a knight. He was a man of lofty stature and powerful frame, mounted on a strong horse, and wielding a very heavy axe with both hands. With this at the encounter he pushed into the greatest throng of his enemies, and having let go his bridle he dealt such heavy blows that those whom he reached with a fair aim could but fall to the ground to rise no more. In this condition he met Pothon de Sainte Treille, who, as he afterwards related, seeing the marvels that the said new knight was doing, withdrew to the rear as fast as he could for fear of the axe which was dealing such heavy blows."
However, at Verneuil (1424), he seems to treat the spear and axe as being equivalent, which might mean this (presumably) middling length axe as the sidearm of the man at arms might have been falling out of use.
"And so horrible was the shouting that there was no man so brave or confident that he was not in fear of death; they began to strike with axes and to thrust with lances, then they put their hands to their swords, with which they gave each other great blows and deadly strokes; the archers of England and the Scots who were with the French began to shoot one against the other so murderously that it was a horror to look upon them, for they carried death to those whom they struck with full force."
Now, some may reason some arguments:
1. The 15th century men at arms often dueled with both a lance and a pollaxe, so why not here?
For one, I have yet to see the length of those axes ever mentioned. However, even if they were long, we must contend with the fact that we have battles where even the quite short, pollaxe-length spears were too long; and if those were too long, I cannot see how a weapon just as long could be used. And again, Froissart calls the axes short, and Lindsay used his in one hand.
2. Why can't these simply be short hatchets?
Strictly, nothing precludes this, but a 1-1.5 foot hatchet I cannot see used easily in two hands, and the powerful blows given while on foot do not seem likely to me with such a short weapon.
3. We know longer axes existed, and are very prevalent in the art.
Longer axes existed, yes, but these things are not mutually exclusive, and middling sized axes are also frequently depicted (although the miniature artists were never so good at proportions). Furthermore, the art from the period seldom depicts axes worn at the neck or at the waist, when we know many were. I do not think art should blindly be taken as an accurate representation of what was actually being used by certain men in certain situations, even if each individual item depicted existed.
Perhaps I am wrong though! If you have seen more conclusive evidence for either these axes being simple short hatchets, or simply being longer pollaxes, then please do comment!
- William
No comments:
Post a Comment