The technique of chivalric combat

The notion that chivalric combat depended solely on strength is widely accepted: but it was not the view of medieval knights and their contemporaries. Victory certainly required physical power. It also depended upon horsemanship, dexterity in handling weapons, agility in dodging and parrying, and speed in seizing opportunities. Knights worked hard to acquire these qualities, and their training took place in encounters conventionally known as Tournaments - comprising various contests reflecting the fighting, both on foot and on horseback, which knights encountered in real warfare.

Several medieval combat manuals survive but, despite these and numerous descriptions by chroniclers, little is known about the techniques of foot combat within the lists until the late-fifteenth-century Jeu de la hache. One thing, however, is clear: the ignorance of fencers prior to the mid-16th century has been exaggerated; and, while the lunge was never described, the superiority of thrust over cut (not only with single-handed sword, but also with two-hander and pole axe) was fully understood. This was one reason for the late-15th-century innovation of barriers - a combat so circumscribed that it neither merited nor inspired analysis.

Mounted fencing (tourneying), on the other hand, was the subject of several attempts at codification of which the earliest occurs in the treatise on horsemanship (about 1434) by Duarte, King of Portugal who identified four sword strokes on horseback - cut, reverse, downward blow and thrust - but believed that the first two were best. Blows are most effective when the horse's momentum is employed.

Arm and body must act together - the rider standing firmly in his stirrups, sword tightly held, and the stroke delivered downward and obliquely. Duarte advises a tourneyer who has beaten one opponent to ride forward to the next without turning so that his blows will be more powerful and his horse will not tire through unnecessary manoeuvring. Later writers did not add substantially to Duarte's theories, and even Alfieri Gaiani (1619) had little new to say. The thrust, he agrees, is much less effective on horseback than the cut; and he recognized that success in mounted fencing depended upon well-trained horses and expert riding rather than on swordsmanship - a view corroborated by many narratives from the 15th and 17th centuries.

Jousting (knights, either singly, in pairs, or in groups, charging each other with lances), like other forms of tournament, came to be hedged in with safety regulations (rebated lances, specialized armour, and the introduction of the wooden barrier or tilt); and, although "running at large" without tilt remained a feature of tournaments up to the mid-16th century, it was largely supplanted by the safer and more easily regulated tilting.

There is no earlier statment on jousting theory than King Duarte's. He diagnosed the principal reasons for failure (inadequate vision, lack of the will to win, and poor control over lance or horse); recommended constant practice in wearing armour and in riding; and warned against using lances too heavy for one's strength.

Similar recommendations for unimpeded vision and against the dangers of oversized lances, occurred in Le Jouvencel (about 1465) which also suggested that jousters should vary their target and take counter-measures if an opponent aimed constantly at the same part of their body. Ability to hit a precise target is assumed, as is the mastery to alter one's blow at will.

By the time Juan Quixada de Reayo wrote on jousting technique (1548), tilting predominated; but his discussion throws retrospective light on lance play in general, for technique changed little over the centuries. It was, for example, crucial to check that the rochet (rebated metal lance head) fitted firmly because, if it moved on impact, the lance would not shatter.

Similarly, Quixada stressed that all lances had to be measured exactly for if one were slightly longer then not only would it break first but the other lance would be unlikely to break at all.

Mounted fencing (tourneying), on the other hand, was the subject of several attempts at codification of which the earliest Quixada assumed that, unless their horses stumbled, skilled knights hit whatever they aimed at. Nevertheless, even the slightest wavering of the lance could be disastrous, because a tiny movement at the rest becomes two palms' width at the point. Like his predecessors, Quixada valued clear vision and firm demeanour. Knights should never stare at the oncoming lance but concentrate instead upon the end of their own. He also discussed couching the lance which should be lowered gently, like the weight of a clock, enabling a knight to correct any initial error.

The manner of lowering the lance became a regular topos and received an interesting treatment from Bartolomeo Sereno (1610) who reduced lance play to a geometrical proposition, tracing a notional right-angled triangle between the tip of the lance, the lance rest, and the point of vision through one's vizor. Sereno's timing was equally formalized - one continuous movement within the space of three musical beats - though the smoothness of this action was visiated by his insistence that the lance should be placed in its rest as near to the delivery of the blow as possible in order to take the opponent unawares. Noteworthy, too, is Serenos injunction against turning sideways in the saddle. Leading with the left side not only presents a more vulnerable target but also, by shortening one's own lance, enables the opponent to strike first.

The statements of such theoreticians are largely confirmed by narratives which multipled from the late 14th century onwards. The basic techniques (carrying the lance upright, butt-end resting on right thigh; placing the lance cleanly in the rest; pointing it across the left shoulder of the horse; and lowering it smoothly during the charge) are all fully documented.

So, too, is the strenuousness of jousting "at large": with heavy damage regularly done to arms and armour; unhorsing, wounding, and slaying of knights and steeds. The need for good quality mounts is confirmed by constant references to the way in which horses spoilt contests by swerving, flinching, or running wide. The importance of fixing the rochet is attested by jousts where though knights consistently hit each other - the tips did not bite, and lances "slid" without breaking; while the fact that this occurred more frequently at some tournaments than at others suggests that lance-making expertise varied enormously.

There was, moreover, a wide gulf between expert and inexpert jousters: and, judging from the number of complete misses recorded for some encounters, the latter often constituted a majority. On the other hand, references to consistent accuracy, especially on the part of certain individuals, are sufficiently common to confirm that jousting could be managed adroitly and that success did depend more on judgement than on luck.