Arms and Armour from the New Haven Gladiatoria Manuscript
We all know what a knight looks like: a shiny suit of armour covers his body, and in his hand he holds a mighty sword, exactly like a Playmobil figure or another toy knight, exactly as we may have seen in the movies. The fighters in the Gladiatoria manuscript from New Haven wear magnificent armour too, and they are equipped with all kinds of weapons. In this brief outline I want to concentrate primarily on the peculiarities and the characteristics of arms and armour of this particular manuscript; a thorough and detailed examination remains to be done—essentially due to mere reasons of space.
Armour, or, to use the more historically accurate term, the harness1 (plate 1) that dresses an entire man2 in iron plates, appeared only at the very end of the age of chivalry. When the development of the complete suit of plate armour was completed, the decline of knighthood had already begun and other power factors, such as trade and commerce in the cities, were becoming increasingly important. Nevertheless, harnesses continued to be used for centuries before ultimately being phased out. Very occasionally, however, harness wearers appear even today—such as the Swiss Guards of the Pope, who are still equipped with a breastplate.
The development from body protection made of mail to a complete plate harness3 took place mainly in what is now northern Italy, largely in the second half of the 14th century.4 After that time, no substantial new features were added; however, wearing comfort was improved and the protective effect increased by more refined and sophisticated technical details.5 The shoulder constituted a particular challenge in this respect.6 Further changes were often only fashionable whims,7 such as exuberant fluting, etching, gilding and other accumulations of decoration in what was referred to as parade armor. Around 1420, the development of the Italian harness was largely completed. At the time, the “soft style” predominated in Germany; this term describes the appearance of armour that consists of a combination of individual iron plates, fabric, and parts made of mail.8
Unfortunately, very few specimens have survived from the period spanning the early days of the armourer’s art to about the middle of the 15th century,9 and an exact number is next to impossible to ascertain.10 Early harnesses made in Italy appear relatively frequently. This is due to the division of labour in the production process, which allowed for enormous output. The German armourers, who were organized in strictly regulated guilds, could not accomplish this to that extent. Notable examples can be found in the armoury of Churburg castle in Schluderns (South Tirol)11 which possesses the oldest surviving breastplate from about 1370 (inv. no. CHS 13). This breastplate came from the workshop of the famous armourer family Missaglia (plate 2). At this time harnesses made in Italy were far superior to examples from Germany.12
By around the middle of the 15th century, the competing armouring centres in Italy and Germany had developed their particular own style. Italian harnesses are smooth and rounded. By contrast, the German harnesses are far more angular and edgy. The surface of the individual armour parts were increasingly decorated with ridges and flutings.13 Around the year 1470, this eventually led to the so-called “Gothic” armour style, a term, however, that stems from the Victorian age. With its intricacy and graceful exterior appearance, it “represents the apogée of the armourer’s art”.14
The Italian harness also differs from German examples in some construction-related peculiarities: it has lateral fastenings consisting of hinges (left) and buckles (right), and articulated breast and backplates connected by leather straps. The shoulder defences, called pauldrons, are expansive and asymmetrical, and the most popular helmet is the visored armet.
German armour parts from the mid-15th century are much rarer than Italian ones, and not even a single complete suit has survived. The best preserved one is a composite of two harnesses from about 1450 in the Wien Museum in Vienna (inv. no. 127.000–127.009), but the pauldrons, rerebraces, couters, gauntlets and helmet are missing (plate 3).15 It ranks among the so-called “Kastenbrust” harnesses that feature a more or less box-shaped breastplate and which were popular in the Holy Roman Empire and in Flanders. The origin of the term Kastenbrust (or “box-shaped breast”) remains unknown, but it alludes to the geometrical ideal (a straight, flat chest, that bends inwards almost in a right angle just below the breastbone), although deviations seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
The expression Kastenbrust is thus somewhat misleading because the surviving specimens are not particularly box-shaped, but have rather bulbous or bulged forms, sometimes even with a pronounced middle ridge. Thus, the only four surviving examples correspond only partially to the definition as it is provided, for instance, in the Bildwörterbuch der Kleidung und Rüstung: the Kastenbrust is a prismatic shaped breastplate with transverse and lateral edges as a part of the late Gothic harness from the mid-15th century, also comprising a tonlet.16 Another characteristic of the Kastenbrust is the one-piece construction of the breastplate, which, unlike the later articulated examples, overlaps a waist plate from above at roughly navel height. In contrast, the articulated lames of later harnesses are constructed such that each lower plate overlaps the upper one. The surviving examples suggest that the tonlet that is attached to the lower edge can be taken off by means of pins and clips if required.
Another Kastenbrust from the Metropolitan Museum in New York (inv. no. 29.150.79) is also not particularly box-shaped. The surface is broken up by numerous small ridges that extend radially from the bottom edge of the breastplate up to the armholes. Another specimen, in the Glasgow Museums (inv. no. A1981.40.a–c), is dated to 1430–50 and is considered to be the earliest surviving piece.17 While it is clearly much more box-shaped, it nevertheless shows strongly rounded shapes at the sides of the abdomen.
A few years ago, Matthias Goll succeeded in identifying another Kastenbrust at the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin (inv. no. W2312).18 Due to the diversity of those harnesses summarized under the term Kastenbrust, Goll, Müller and Graf suggest a variety of more refining terms: “straight Kastenbrust” for the classic square type, “articulated Kastenbrust” for variants with multiple lames instead of a single waist plate, and “Kastenbrust with a middle ridge”.
Sources from the visual arts are far more numerous than actual surviving examples: paintings by artists such as Rogier van der Weyden (plate 4), Jan van Eyck, Hans Multscher, Master Francke, and Konrad Witz show early harnesses in loving detail, even and especially those with a Kastenbrust. Some sculptures depict elaborate Kastenbrust armour in detail, such as the statue of St. George from the main altar of St. George Church in Wismar (plate 5).
The manuscripts of the Gladiatoria group19 stem from the transitional period around the middle of the 15th century, when the soft style merged into the Gothic style.20 Precise dating of the manuscripts is difficult, but if one takes the stylistic criteria of armour into consideration—the remarkable similarity with the painting “Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele” by Jan van Eyck from 1436 is particularly striking— dating to exactly this period is rather likely. The three Gladiatoria manuscripts containing both images and text (Cracow, New Haven, and Vienna), are generally quite similar to each other—although the Cracow codex does stand out, both in terms of the illustrations as well as the stern textualis handwriting, making its appearance more sophisticated but also more stylised. The two specimens from Vienna and New Haven are much more similar to each other, and it even seems that the scribe responsible for the New Haven codex wrote large parts of the Vienna version.21 The quality of the illustrations in the New Haven manuscript is consistently higher than in the one from Vienna, although there are nevertheless some outstanding exceptions (folios 7r/v, 11r/v, 17v–19r, 28r/v, 31v and 49r/v).
The variety of the harnesses in the two manuscripts from New Haven and Vienna is significantly larger than in the Cracow version, where the armour appears rather schematic and uniformly drawn. In particular, the New Haven codex offers the greatest wealth of armour details. The fighters in this manuscript still wear some textile armour parts or larger amounts of mail pieces—almost every harness wearer has a mail skirt. Even on harnesses of a much later origin, some parts of the body are still protected with mail made of small metal rings, such as where it is difficult or impossible for the plates to cover spots such as the armpits, the crooks of the arm, or the crotch. This flexible mesh was naturally more susceptible to strikes, but the sword’s tip would stop in the tiny gaps of the small rings. And thus Martin Huntfelt, for instance, expressly recommends in his instructions for the “Kampffechten”22 (harness fencing, literally: combat fencing), which are preserved in several fencing treatises, that combatants put the sword into the opponent’s rings (for example, Rome, Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana, 44 A 8, folio 89r).
The greatest opulence of variations is seen in the armour of the upper body. Here, the construction method cannot always be clearly seen in the illustrations, especially where a textile surcoat veils the breastplate. However, there are breast and backplates that seem to be riveted together from numerous vertical segments (for example, folios 10v, 11r, 15v, and 16r), some that are reminiscent of a brigandine (folios 16v, 23v, and 25r), and fully formed plate defences as well (folios 11r, 24v, 38r, 40v, 43r). Only a few examples depict a torso defence made of mail (folios 7r, 23r, 34v, 35r), and combinations (such as mail armour with a single breastplate, folio 36v) also appear sporadically. A curiosity is present in the left fighter on folio 28r, whose abdomen is protected beneath the breastplate with a mail skirt, which then, however, continues below the opponent’s arm in front as a fauld of articulated lames—probably due to inattention on the part of the illustrator. Incidentally, we shall meet this gentleman again elsewhere.
The majority of breastplates shown are curved and round, but there are quite a number of examples of armour which correspond to the Kastenbrust type—sometimes more pronounced, sometimes less—for example, here in the New Haven manuscript on folios 3v, 8v, 11r, 24v, and 25r; and in the Vienna manuscript on folios 4v, 18v, and 19r.
The leg defences are nearly uniform, with the exception of the sabatons, some of which are scaled, partially made of mail, or partially constructed of articulated lames. On several leg defences there is also a detail that is usually only found in Italian Quattrocento23 harnesses: a perforated metal band, riveted to the lower lame of the poleyn, to which a slim strip of mail is attached.
The arm defences are also very similar to each other. The shoulder represents a transitional form from the smaller spaudlers that just cover the shoulders, to the much wider pauldrons, equipped with sweeping front and rear wings.
Considering the period of origin of the codex, the low-worn plaque belts are also noteworthy, as they already look a bit old-fashioned, although they still seem to have been used to some degree (see plate 5). The sheaths for dagger and sword are attached to these.
Other aspects of particular interest are the buckles on the back of each of the right fencers on folios 1v and 24r, which may represent a helmet attachment; a unique lance rest on the left fighter on folio 28r—the gentleman with the two-part groin protection (in the entire Gladiatoria group there is no second lance rest to be found); a heavy chain on folio 34r on the right armoured fencer, reaching from the right shoulder across the abdomen to the left calf;24 not clearly identifiable fasteners on the right side of the harness of the left fighter on folio 38r; and finally a plaque belt, cluttered with small bells, at the left fencer on folio 5v.
The Gladiatoria harnesses represent armour for combat on foot for which symmetrical pauldrons are typical. The pauldrons of equestrian harnesses are often cut out on the right side in order to accommodate the insertion of the lance into the lance rest. On the left shoulder, which was more exposed to attacks, however, the pauldron frequently reaches down lower.25 Another characteristic feature is the tonlet that is formed from the abdominal lames of the fauld, and the culet which occasionally can even reach down to the knee.26 Although the lance rest mentioned on folio 28r indicates an equestrian harness, it is not impossible that the same armour could be worn for combat both on horseback and on foot. It is possible that even early harnesses were already specially assembled for the intended use, something that becomes rather common somewhat later, from the 16th century onwards, with the extensive armour sets, so-called garnitures, which may consist of more than 100 individual pieces. Another indication for the use on foot are cuisses that are closed at the rear (for example, folio 42v), which do not exist for fights on horseback, as this would make it difficult or even impossible to steer a horse due to the lack of contact of the thigh with the body of the horse.
Several specialized craftsmen were involved in the production of a harness. In addition to the armourer, responsible for the forging of the steel plates and generally bringing the metal into shape, there was the polisher and others who attended to the leather strapping and the gloves. The edges of the individual armour parts were reinforced in numerous places by bending them over a wire; also, not all parts of a plate were the same thickness. Often those portions facing the opponent, such as the front of the breastplate, were thicker than the lateral parts. After forging, the harness was mounted on a trial basis in order to achieve the best possible fit. Finally, the individual parts were joined with loosely connected sliding rivets28 and leather straps, resulting in a flexible and yet stable body armour.29 Stephen N. Fliegel writes: “The armor plates were ingeniously pivoted to each other at the sides by sliding rivets that moved in slots. The elements of a suit of armor were never riveted directly to each other (since this would render them inflexible), but were made to overlap slightly. Within the concealed areas were the rivets securing them to interior leather straps. The exterior rivets were either sliding rivets or nonfunctional ornamental rivets.”30
There were indeed harnesses “off the shelf”, bought and sold by distributors and merchants. A better fit, however, was of course guaranteed by custom-made armour, which was facilitated by the customer’s personal garments being provided to the armourer.31 Bruno Thomas writes: “The harness is accurately made to measure—either from measurements of the customer himself or of his clothes, which are sent to the armorer—for one single wearer and his unique dimensions. Only he completely fills his form. Only with him can the armour fulfill its full purpose.”32
The armourer transformed rigid metal parts into a flexible structure, almost a sculpture, that only showed its true beauty once its owner put it on and brought it to life. According to Bruno Thomas once again: “You can pick a single piece, such as a gauntlet, individually and study the rich, shaped play of movement in its many steel bands. The armourer pursues every single joint and its mode of action. Indeed, he manages to surpass it significantly in most cases. The body was to be given the opportunity to perform its gestures, and to find its shaped expression within its own movements—unhindered by a steel garment. Moreover, the harnesses made by the great masters strive to support this expression, and even to increase it. In truth, they are able to raise their wearers beyond themselves, to monumentalise them.”33
Mobility in armour and the weight of armour are constant sources of popular misconception. In a life or death battle, hardly anyone would take the chance of sacrificing the essential ability to move freely strictly in favour of protection. In fact, mobility in armour was fundamental and was only slightly impaired. Recent studies at the University of Geneva have shown that some movement patterns allow even greater freedom with armour than without it.34
Likewise, the weight of armour is usually estimated far too high. If we take the field pack of a modern soldier, which can weigh 30 kg or more, depending on the country and the mission, the burden rests primarily on the shoulders. However, the weight of the medieval harness was distributed over the entire body in a beneficial way. Indeed, this makes the use of the arms and legs slightly cumbersome, but overall, it offered considerable wearing comfort—especially for someone used to wearing armour from their youth.
Since, unfortunately, complete originals from the mid-15th century have not survived, we can only use whole harnesses from later periods for comparison. The armour for field and tournament from 1505–10 (W 81.12,30.94) from the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin, for instance, weighs only 19.9 kg35 and would still remain below 30 kg, even with the addition of clothing worn underneath, mail armour parts, sword and dagger. Another suit of armour from about 1520 from the same museum (W 2326, 38.226) weighs 22.4 kg36 and a third from about 1540 (W 2325 a–h, 06.658 a–m) weighs only 18.9 kg37—but this one is missing the left gauntlet. One heavyweight of the museum is the “Riefelharnisch”—as harnesses with an abundance of mostly vertical and parallel flutings are called—W 2327, AD 2997, which weighs in at 26.8 kg on the scales, but then again it is also 188 cm tall.38 The closest chronological relative is a Gothic field harness from about 1470 (W 1052, AB 1397), which, however, is equipped with arm defenses that are not originally from this field harness, but rather from jousting armour, and the weight of which totals 22.7 kg.39
The immobile knight, who, as soon as he has gone to ground, cannot rise again, and who would need to be lifted onto his horse by crane in any case, is an unfortunate legend that we owe to Laurence Olivier’s motion picture Henry V, which is otherwise quite worth watching.
In fact, while there was indeed heavy armour, it was generally only used for tournaments. In particular, helmets could reach an enormous weight of 15 kg—in contrast to the “normal” helmet, which weighed only 2–3 kg. However, the tournament was a highly specialised sport that required highly specialised equipment that could not be considered as a benchmark for field harnesses.40
The harness provided its wearer with excellent all-around protection. However, absolute safety could not be ensured even here, because some parts of the body simply cannot be covered with steel plates. Examples include the leather gloves inside the gauntlets, which are necessary to grip the weapon securely, and the soles of shoes, because of the need for traction. In particular, the vision slits and vents in the visor were indispensable. These vulnerabilities, called openings, were naturally preferred targets for attack in combat. The fencing master Johannes Liechtenauer, for instance, lists the following openings: “Merck das ist wo der gewappent man am pesten zw gewinenn ist durch den harnasch | das ist vnder dem gesicht oder vnder den v¨chsen | Oder In den tanär der hendt oder auf dem arm˜ hinden Inn den hantschuechen oder in den knÿkelen oder vnden an den fuessen den süllen | vnd In den gelencken der armpüg | vnd zwischen den painen | vnd an den steten da der harnasch sein gelenck hat | vnd die plössen soltu also suechen das dw zw einer ferreren nicht solt arbaitten noch stechen | wenn dw ein nahere vor dir gehaben magst”.41 (Note, this tells where the best places are to attack an armoured man through the harness. These are under the face, under the armpits, in the palms of the hands, on the arms from behind into the gauntlets, into the hollows of the knee, or below on the soles of the feet, in the insides of the elbows, between the legs, and anywhere the harness has its articulations. And you should seek the openings such that you do not work or thrust to a more distant opening when you can reach a closer one.)42
Apart from that, the harness did protect the wearer very effectively against wounding, and a stroke or a thrust to the smooth and rounded plates was virtually ineffective and would not penetrate the steel. Nevertheless, there are several historical depictions of destroyed, pierced, battered, or smashed harnesses.43 The question of how realistic penetrations such as these are is much discussed, especially since surviving specimens are rather rare.44 To use modern replicas for verification may not necessarily provide a clear conclusion, because of different materials and manufacturing processes; sacrificing valuable originals is obviously not an option. So we look with great interest upon the punctured armours in the Wolfenbüttel Gladiatoria manuscript in which we can see breastplates being pierced with daggers on folios 82r , 94v (plate 8), 105v, 107v, and 110r; and on folio 109v, a helmet is completely pierced (plate 9). Other Gladiatoria versions do not show destroyed armour parts.
Since all four extant Kastenbrust harnesses have survived only rudimentarily, we cannot say with certainty what type of helmet originally belonged to them. Paintings and sculptures suggest, however, that they were associated either with a kettle hat or with a bascinet, often in a particular variant called the great bascinet. In a famous painting by Konrad Witz that depicts a complete Kastenbrust harness, the suit of armour is equipped with just such a great bascinet that incidentally bears several nicks and scratches on the helmet’s skull.
The helmets of the Gladiatoria manuscripts all belong to a single, uniform type, and they are remarkably similar to each other throughout. All have the form of a visored helmet, which has certain similarities to the great bascinet, but also shows elements of a close-fitting armet or a German close helmet. However, due to the illustrated head position, a great bascinet seems unlikely, since it would be attached to the breast and backplate (often by leather straps), which indeed allows rotation of the head inside the helmet to a small extent, but never in concert with the helmet. On the other hand, the straps on the back that appear in two illustrations have already been addressed, so a clear assertion is unfortunately impossible.
The visor is mainly depicted with two symmetrically arranged series of several narrow vertical vision slits; the circles that commonly appear above and beneath these slits can be interpreted either as decoration or as additional horizontal rows of air holes. The hinges of the visors are always covered with round discs.
Some helmets are shown with an aventail at the bottom, but this is not uniformly the case. While the manuscripts from New Haven and Vienna quite often show such aventails, they don’t appear at all in the Cracow manuscript, with the exception of folio 30r. Other examples have either a throat and neck protection that apparently consists of articulated lames and that extends downwards to the breastplate (for example, folio 34r), or possibly a completely rigid protection.
It is noteworthy that some illustrated fencing manuscripts that deal with the armoured duel omit the presentation of steel gauntlets altogether. In the present manuscript, there are only two pictures in which the fighters wear gauntlets (folios 27r and 28v). These two pages normally follow each other directly and are only separated here due to the rebinding of the codex. It is only here that the gauntlet is explicitly mentioned as a target. It is not clear why no gauntlets are presented in the rest of the manuscript since the illustrator was quite capable of depicting hand positions, even with gauntlets. Illustrated gauntlets are also omitted in several manuscripts by Hans Talhoffer.45 Other manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, such as those by Jörg Wilhalm,46 Ludwig von Eyb,47 Paulus Kal,48 the Codex Wallerstein,49 the Berlin codex Libr. pict. A 83, but also the earliest Talhoffer manuscript from 144850—to name just a few—indeed show armoured men with their gauntlets. The reason why the artists of the Gladiatoria manu-scripts refrain from generally presenting gauntlets in the picture thus remains a mystery.
The cuffs of the few specimens, however, consistently have a plain hourglass form and, in contrast to those from the end of the 15th century, no articulation. Only the fingers are made of several small lames.
A majority of the fighters wear long surcoats, which ornamentally frame the combat action in flowing shapes. Numerous dagged garments occur that embrace the harnesses tightly. It should be emphasized that the illustrated textiles snugly follow the shape of the breast and backplates, and that in some cases buttons (front: folios 4r, 5r, 6r, 9v, 11v, 12r, 13v, 18v, 23r, 26v, and 31r; lateral: folio 15v) or lacings (folios 10r, 11r) are even recognizable.
In the preceding 14th century, textile fabrics appear with body armour in a variety of ways. Some of them stand on their own, sometimes a single breastplate is worn over a quilted doublet, sometimes the fabric is used as a cover material over a metal body protection, such as with an early breastplate from the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum (inventory number W 195), or even as a carrier material, as with the brigandine, where numerous overlapping steel plates are riveted to the fabric cover.
It is remarkable that pictures of fighters in armour of the same periode, as for instance with Hans Talhoffer,51 show the bare metal. On the other hand, the aforementioned fencing master Martin Huntfelt explicitly recommended to cut pieces from the surcoat of the opponent in order to stab them into his visor with a dagger (Rome, 44 A 8, folios 92v/93r).
Particularly noteworthy are also the fighters on the left on folios 29r, 34r and 40v, who wear doublets that resemble surviving originals from Lübeck and Stendal: knee-length, padded, quilted tunics with dagged edges, which are attached to the bottom.52
The medieval shield changed continuously over time, just like armour, and was adapted to different needs for the greatest possible protection with unimpeded mobility at the same time. Wood always served as the starting material, and a covering of leather or linen gave the shield further stability. Iron was present only in the form of shield bosses, occasionally as an additional reinforcement of the rim, or as fittings on the surface.53 The large shields from the 11th century, which tapered towards an acute point at the bottom, and were thus able to protect the entire side of the warrior, became shorter and stockier over time, while the upper, formerly round edge became increasingly flattened: the closed form of the great helm rendered face protection by the shield unnecessary. Over the course of the further development of armour the equestrian shield became less and less important and evolved into a small triangle around the year 1300, called a heater shield. In the late Middle Ages a completely new form of equestrian shield appeared, the convex, outwardly curved, more or less rectangular ecranche—in the German sources known as “tartsche”,54 a term which supposedly derives from the Arabic dárake (shield). This could also derive from the Latin terga (back), or tergum tauricum (oxhide).55 The Italian targa and the English targe are related. The origin of the term ecranche is somewhat obscure; but the French word écrancher essentially means to take the creases out of a cloth. In the older version écrancer, the term cran referred to a notch.
Once plate armour was fully developed, the shield almost completely lost its relevance and was only used in isolated cases. The Ghent altarpiece by Jan van Eyck, dating to 1430, is an example of this. Its panels depict men in harnesses (of the Kastenbrust type) who carry several different forms of ecranche. In the tournament, however, the story is different—until the final decay of the sport, a shield was always in use, and was adapted to the respective discipline.
The time of origin of the Gladiatoria manuscripts marked the transition to a complete abandonment of the equestrian shield, which henceforth was used only in the tournament as a manteau d’armes, and for the two sportive forms of the joust, called stechen and rennen.
Ecranches, including those from the Gladiatoria group, have an indentation on the right side, the so-called bouche, which served as a means to keep the lance stable on horseback. Thus, these defensive weapons might suggest that the combat on foot was preceded by some fighting on horseback.56 However, as already mentioned, with a single exception (folio 28r) not even a single fighter has a lance rest, which also allows the lance to be directed more accurately. It is possible that the ecranches were expressly intended for use on foot.
In the Wolfenbüttel Gladiatoria version, there are many more techniques than in the other manuscripts of the group; so, for instance, on folios 34r and 37r we see spears inserted into the bouche. Folio 34r (plate 10) is unique among the Gladiatoria manuscripts; the ninth technique in the version from New Haven on folio 3v, which corresponds to folio 37r from Wolfenbüttel, shows a different position of the ecranche.
In the New Haven manuscript, the ecranches are utilized only from the ninth to the twelfth techniques of the spear on folios 3v–5r. (The left-hand fighters in the Cracow and Vienna versions refrain from the use of the ecranche in the ninth technique, and in the manuscripts from Cracow and Wolfenbüttel—both of which also contain the first technique of the spear—the left fencer has taken his ecranche loosely in his left hand.) In all other images, the ecranches rest on the floor. None of them allow any heraldic identification of the fighters, but instead uniformly show a red St. George’s Cross57 on a white background. The only other illustrations of armoured fighters with ecranches appear in the so-called Codex Wallerstein58 on folios 82v, 88v, 91r, 95v, 103r, 104v, 105r/v, and 107r/v. The armour represented in this manuscript, which is compiled from multiple sources, precedes those from the Gladiatoria group (plate 11).59
“It is a constant interaction and reciprocity between arms and body protection that led to new designs and shapes on both sides. As a result, the improvement of one group necessitated the perfection of the other.”60
The spear and the lance were the most widely used weapons of the Middle Ages. Spears and javelins were already used in antiquity. They were about two metres long and thus well suited to be used in a duel in versatile ways. They could either be thrown or used in close combat with one or two hands. The longer lance, which was used on horseback and couched under the arm, appeared in Central Europe in the late 11th or early 12th century. About four meters in length, it was too heavy and too long to find extensive use on foot in the duel.61 Nevertheless, in the glosses on Johannes Liechtenauer’s verses, the dismounted fighter is still advised to make good use of his lance.62 The pike however, used in major military formations, could reach even greater lengths of up to six metres.
Occasionally, the precise linguistic definition of the German sources is difficult, so that “Speer” and “Spieß” are often used interchangeably—both of which would translate as “spear”. Generally, a “Speer” referred to an appropriate weapon for throwing—a javelin. Boeheim, however, offers a differing definition, calling the staff weapon used on horseback a “Speer”63—which goes hand in hand with the bouche in the ecranche that serves to stabilize the spear or lance thrust, and which is called a “Speerruhe” (literally, spear rest) in the old sources. On the other hand, there is the so-called “Rennspieß”—a special tournament lance for the “Rennen” that was three to five metres long. The staff weapon in question, nevertheless, is referred to in the Gladiatoria manuscripts as “Spieß” throughout. It could either be thrown or used in close combat.
The length of the spears in the Gladiatoria manuscripts seems to be about two to two and a half metres, so they can be considered as too short for use on horseback. The spearheads are kept quite simple; they are double-edged, and the long nozzle is attached to the shaft with a nail.
Numerous Fechtbücher describe fencing techniques in harness with the spear; none of the manuscripts that feature only text, however, mention the combined use with the ecranche. The chronologically related manuscripts by Hans Talhoffer64 also show sword, dagger and spear together in the pictures, but no ecranches.
Illustrated Fechtbücher that additionally describe the mounted combat, like those by Paulus Kal,65 show stylistically very similar spears or lances, whose most obvious difference is the length of the shaft. Interesting in this context are the two images in Kal’s Fechtbücher, which separate the mounted combat from that on foot; here the dismounted combatant holds the long rider’s lance in order to bring the horseman to the ground (plate 12). The next two illustrations show the dismounted harnessed fighters with shorter spears, followed by another two images with combatants on foot that again use equestrian lances.
In the writings that refer to master Johannes Liechtenauer, the fighting evolves from combat on horseback with lance and sword to dismounted fighting with spear, sword, dagger, and wrestling. It is worth noting in this context that in Paulus Kal’s manuscripts, there is also only a single rendition of a harness that is equipped with a lance rest—however, without the depicted lance being inserted.66
This short thrusting weapon was mainly suitable for close combat and appears in a plethora of forms. In the present Gladiatoria manuscript it occurs almost without exception as a rondel dagger, in which one disc forms the guard and another the pommel. Only in the very first illustration on folio 1r do we see an example of a so-called bollock, bullock, or kidney dagger, characterised by two spherical bulges at the base of the blade. Incidentally, this is the only occurrence of this weapon in the entirety of the manuscripts from the Gadiatoria group, although in the artistically less sophisticated Wolfenbüttel version, bollock daggers are possibly also shown on folios 32r, 50v, 68r/v, and 69r/v .
The handles often appear to be studded or ribbed, but the shape of the blades is difficult to identify. Historical dagger blades appear in many different forms: round, one, two, or three-edged or even tetragonal cross sections exist; the blades can have a smooth or ridged surface or can be indented with a variety of fullers.67
The dagger was often used as a last resort in armoured combat; once the opponent was taken to the ground or otherwise made unable to move, one should attempt to thrust into the openings of the armour with the dagger to completely persuade the opponent to surrender or even to kill him.68
The sword was ultimately the knightly weapon par excellence, although one can hardly speak of the sword. Like armour, the sword changed over the centuries. In the period that concerns us here, it was a versatile weapon that had already undergone a long development. The blades of the swords of the Gladiatoria manuscripts taper evenly from the crossguard to the point, the tip of the blade. The quillons are straight or curved only very slightly towards the point; the handle allows the sword to be gripped with both hands; and the generally scent-stopper-shaped pommel is often faceted, with a more or less pronounced sharp chamfered middle edge. Rarely seen is a button or tang nut (e. g. on folio 5v). According to Ewart Oakeshott’s sword typology, the illustrated examples correspond to type XVII.69 These swords, by definition, have a long handle as well as sturdy, long, and slender blades that taper straight to an acute point and provide a hexagonal cross section, sometimes with a shallow fuller.70
The plain crossguards belong to Oakeshott type 1 (straight) or 7 (slightly curved towards the blade), the pommels are of type T, T4, or T5.
The handles are depicted rather plainly and do not have a distinct latitudinal ridge or thickening in the middle of the hilt, which appears in several extant specimens and is also commonly found in paintings and sculptures.
Even with this simplicity in terms of the design, the swords nevertheless do not lack the chape, the small leather piece that overlaps the crossguard in a semi-circle over the base of the blade and that is often referred to as a rain guard. However, the assumption that this little piece of leather is supposed to protect the sword against rainwater penetrating into the scabbard appears to be highly doubtful, especially since a sword needs a tight fit in the scabbard to prevent it from falling out in any case, and furthermore the thickness of the crossguard alone should already provide sufficient protection against intruding rainwater. An alternative approach starts from the premise that the toughness of the leather might briefly slow down the opponent’s blade as it came sliding along one’s own weapon, in order to better protect one’s own hand, but might also gain a temporal advantage for counter actions. Another explanation assumes that the copious sweat from the hands, which causes steel to corrode, could be kept away from the crossguard and the base of the blade in this way. Since sweat also penetrates leather gloves after a time, such a protective leather piece would be useful both in unarmoured combat as well as in harness. Since the left hand usually precedes the right one in armoured fencing, and thus the opponent’s blade hardly can come into contact with one’s own crossguard anyway, this explanation seems the most plausible.
Exactly as with armour, the weight of swords is often overestimated. Performances in front of an audience in which faithful replicas are passed around bring forth some estimated weights of five, ten or even fifteen kilogrammes. A second item, presented afterwards for reasons of comparison, a 1.5 litre water bottle, generally evokes some astonishment. On average, one-handed swords weigh 800 grammes to 1.3 kg, two-handed ones 1.4 to 2 kilogrammes, and the large so-called “Bidenhänder” (literally: both-handers) from the Renaissance weigh about 3 kilogrammes.71 In the appendix to his essay “Anderthalbhänder – Zweihänder – Langes Schwert”72 Tilmann Wanke mentions the weight of several swords belonging to the same period and of the same type as those from the Gladiatoria group. For example cat. no. 5 (hand-anda-half sword, bastard sword: Collection Fricker, No. 741), weighs 1,250 g at 115 cm; cat. no. 6 (bastard sword, armour-piercing sword: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, A 168) weighs 1,668 g at 130.2 cm; cat. no. 7 (hand-and-a-half sword: Tower of London, IX 959) weighs 1,250 g at a length of 109.7 cm; cat. no. 15 (two-handed sword: Deutsches Historisches Museum, W 893) weighs 2,190 g at 135.5 cm; cat. no. 16 (bastard sword: Tower of London, IX 16) weighs 1,530 g at 119.4 cm; and finally cat. no. 18 (two-handed sword: Collection Fricker) weighs 1,880 g at a length of 150.9 cm.
One of the most striking techniques is certainly the unscrewing and throwing of the pommel (f. 5r). Beyond the other Gladiatoria manuscripts that present the same technique (Cracow: 7r, Vienna: 6r, Wolfenbüttel: 35r), this particular technique appears only in three manuscripts, namely one by Gregor Erhart73 (folios 217v/218r),74 one attributed to Jörg Wilhalm75 (fol. 84r)76 and one by Joachim Meyer77 (folios 93r/v),78 although Meyer’s version is a little shorter than the other two. Another example, which contains no accompanying text, but rather only an image, can be found on f. 25r of Cod. 10799 from the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna.
This technique is remarkable insofar as the sword was normally constructed in such a way that the tang passed through both the handle and the pommel and was riveted at the end of the pommel, such that it could not easily be taken apart. The modern sporting weapons of foil, epee, and sabre, however, do have removable pommels or handles in order to facilitate quick replacement of a damaged blade. Nevertheless, a screwable pommel on a sword is a curiosity and has not survived on any actual weapon according to current knowledge. A closer look at the Talhoffer codex from Copenhagen,79 however, reveals an illustration of swords for the armoured duel (folio 108r, plate 13): “die zwaÿ swert hörnt zu dem kampf gwauppet.” (“These two swords belong to the fight in armour.”) One of them possesses a thread, onto the upper end of which a spiky pommel is screwed. This does indeed raise the question of whether there were special swords with removable pommels, particularly designed for the medieval ordeal. In addition to pointed pommels and quillons, Talhoffer also shows spherical bulges in the middle of the blade (plate 14) which might serve to protect the hand, or allow for a firmer grip.
However, the swords depicted in the Gladiatoria manuscripts are not exactly like the special swords shown in Hans Talhoffer’s aforementioned Copenhagen codex. Furthermore, they don’t possess a distinctive ricasso in the middle of the blade as can be seen in a surviving specimen in the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer in Vienna (cat. no. 6 in Wanke: “Anderthalbhänder – Zweihänder – Langes Schwert”).80 The blade of this remarkable sword has a significant indentation with a distinct rectangular cross section in its middle part, which makes it extremely likely that the sword was supposed to be held specifically in the manner for half-swording techniquess.
In any case, the sword is a multifaceted weapon for a variety of purposes: It can perform strikes and cuts with the edge, the point can be used for thrusting, the crossguard facilitates joint locks and throws, and the pommel can be used as a club for powerful blows. Thus the versatile sword, not to mention all the myths associated with it, is a symbol of chivalry, if not entirely of the Middle Ages and medieval combat.
1 The term “harness”, from Old French “harnois”, generally refers to the body protection, which develops from mail into plate armour. Another specific term is the cuirass, which consists only of breast- and backplate.
2 Evidence of women in armour is extremely rare. The painter called “Meister des Albrechtsaltars zu Klosterneuburg” for example depicts the Virgin Mary in harness. However, this is obviously intended as an allegory. A well-known portrait of a prominent harness wearer, Joan of Arc, was created by an unknown artist, although not in her lifetime (Paris, Centre Historique des Archives Nationales).
3 The rigidity of overlapping steel plates gives greater protection than the by-then penetrable surface of mail, particularly against strikes. Individual parts made of metal plates, such as poleyns and greaves, already existed in the 13th century (FLIEGEL: Arms & Armor, p. 44).
4 The smiths who produced armour, the armourers, established themselves in all major cities. By the demands placed on them in a technical and artistic point of view, they distinguished themselves from the mass of metal-working craftsmen and artisans (Die Innsbrucker Plattnerkunst, p. 17).
5 GOLL, MÜLLER, GRAF: “Die älteste deutsche Harnischbrust. Ein Sensationsfund?” p. 36.
6 KÜHNEL (EDITOR): Bildwörterbuch der Kleidung und Rüstung, p. lxxvii.
7 BOEHEIM: Handbuch der Waffenkunde, p. 145.
8 KÜHNEL (EDITOR): Bildwörterbuch der Kleidung und Rüstung, p. lxxviii.
9 Approximately 95 per cent of the preserved armour comes from the period after the battle of Agincourt in 1415 (FLIEGEL: Arms & Armor, p. 21).
10 GOLL: Mit eiserner Faust, p.14.
11 Detailed photos in BOCCIA: Le armature … del ’400.
12 LEHNART: Kleidung & Waffen der Spätgotik III, 1420–1480, p. 92.
13 CAPWELL: The Real Fighting Stuff, p. 21.
14 EDGE/PADDOCK: Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight, p. 103.
15 “On closer inspection, the unfortunately incomplete equestrian armour turns out to consist of the remnants of two contemporaneous harnesses. One of them, the slightly larger one, was manufactured with a plain surface, only enlivened by jagged edges on the movable bands—the so-called “lames”, the other one was decorated by radiating ridges and flutings, and by notched edges on the lames. The bulging chest with three vertical ridges and a culet that reached down to the groin, initially belonged to the plain armour. Today it lacks the riveted strips on the rims of the arm defences and the cottered lancerest on the right side of the breastplate. In addition, the greaves, including the sabatons, belong to this armour; and finally the vambraces, being the remainders of a formerly movably assembled arm defence, were added to this composite late Gothic suit of armour. The other harness provided the backplate including a short culet, decorated with embossed ridges—again missing the riveted strips—as well as the upper leg defences (cuisses), and finally the greaves including sabatons from the late Gothic armour.” (Das Wiener Bürgerliche Zeughaus, p. 39.)
16 KÜHNEL (ED.): Bildwörterbuch der Kleidung und Rüstung, p. 131.
17 CAPWELL: The Real Fighting Stuff, p. 21.
18 GOLL/MÜLLER/GRAF: “Die älteste deutsche Harnischbrust. Ein Sensationsfund?”
19 Named for the Cracow manuscript Ms. Berol. germ. quart. 16 which carries the term “Gladiatoria” (= sword fighting) on the title page in capital letters.
20 Hans-Peter Hils dated the New Haven codex (then still believed to be lost in the war) loosely to the 15th century in general, the manuscript from Cracow to the first half of the 15th century, and the one from Vienna to about the year 1430. The Wolfenbüttel codex is also dated to the 15th century, and the former Donaueschingen manuscript, which is currently located in Paris, is labelled as a compilation written around the year 1500 (HILS: Meister Johann Liechtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes).
21 Two writers were involved in the creation of the Vienna manuscript KK 5013 (FRÜHMORGEN-VOSS/OTT/BODEMANN/STÖLLINGER-LÖSER/LENG: Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters. Band 4/2, Lieferung 1/2, p. 30).
22 In the fencing treatises, the usual expression for the duel in armour.
23 The time of the early Renaissance in Italy, the 15th century.
24 The meaning of this chain is not apparent. Earlier armour has chains attached not only to the breastplate, but also to both sword and dagger in order to prevent them from getting lost during fighting. One particular chain can be admired that is located on or around the neck of a field harness from the Dresden Armoury. This is, however, “a souvenir of the encirclement of Duke Heinrich by the Frisians in Franeker in the year 1500, which was originally kept separately and does not belong to the harness, which can only have been manufactured in the second decade of the 16th century at the earliest.” (Harnische. Historisches Museum Dresden, p. 51.)
25 KÜHNEL (EDITOR): Bildwörterbuch der Kleidung und Rüstung, p. 81.
26 KÜHNEL (EDITOR): Bildwörterbuch der Kleidung und Rüstung, p. 268.
27 Ulrich Lehnart provides a very detailed description of the armour styles and parts of the aforementioned time frame in Kleidung & Waffen der Spätgotik III, 1420–1480.
28 Oblong slots in two overlapping metal plates allow the sliding rivets to move back and forth, so that the plates can shift further from each other than would be possible with simple circular holes.
29 Meisterwerke der Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, p. 33f.
30 FLIEGEL: Arms & Armor, p. 45f.
31 NORMAN: Waffen und Rüstungen, p. 41f.
32 THOMAS: Deutsche Plattnerkunst, p. 18.
33 THOMAS: Deutsche Plattnerkunst, p. 17.
34 JAQUET: Combattre en armure à la fin du Moyen Âge et au début de la Renaissance d’après l’étude des livres de combat.
35 QUAAS: Eisenkleider, p. 65.
36 QUAAS: Eisenkleider, p. 65.
37 QUAAS: Eisenkleider, p. 83.
38 QUAAS: Eisenkleider, p. 85.
39 QUAAS: Eisenkleider, p. 46.
40 LEHNART: Kleidung & Waffen der Spätgotik III, 1420–1480, p. 78.
41 Rome, Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana, 44 A 8, folio 58v.
42 TOBLER: In Saint George’s Name, Wheaton, 2010.
43 In one of Talhoffer’s manuscripts, for example, we can see breastplates being pierced with a pollaxe: Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Thott 290 2o, folios 132r and 134v (plate 6); and in the famous Codex Manesse (Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Pal. germ. 848, folio 321v) Dietmar der Setzer smashes the great helm of his opponent with a sword (plate 7).
44 The collection at Schloss Ambras in Innsbruck possesses a set of tournament armour, the helmet skull of which shows two pierced square holes on the left side.
45 The archetypal Königsegg codex (Königseggwald, Gräfliches Schloss, Hs. XIX, 17–3), for example, also dispenses with the presentation of gauntlets. With the exception of p. 7, where the hands have a natural colouring, they are provided with the same gray-blue washes as the armour. Special cases are the armed men praying on pages 3 and 45, which also have flesh-coloured hands without any gauntlets depicted in the image. On pages 18 and 43, however, we actually see gauntlets. In the former, Master Talhoffer helps squire Luithold of Königsegg to don his harness, with the squire holding a gauntlet at the cuff in his left hand, while his helmet is still on the ground. On page 48 the killed adversary is stripped of his armour, including gauntlets. Another representation of gauntlets is similar to that in the Gladiatoria group: The image for the text “das füren by dem hentschoch” shows a fighter leading his opponent out of the fight ring with the sword tip in the cuff. It is noteworthy that the armed men in the horse fighting section (pp. 99–119) also do not wear gauntlets and have naturally coloured hands.
46 Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod.I.6.2°.3 and Cod.I.6.4°.5, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 3711.
47 Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, B 26.
48 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 1507; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, KK 5126.
49 Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod.I.6.4°.2.
50 Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek Schloss Friedenstein, Ms. Chart. A558.
51 Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek Schloss Friedenstein, Ms. Chart. A558.
52 LEHNART: Kleidung & Waffen der Spätgotik III, 1420–1480, pp. 126.
53 BOEHEIM: Handbuch der Waffenkunde, p. 170.
54 KOHLMORGEN: Der mittelalterliche Reiterschild, pp. 130.
55 KOHLMORGEN: Der mittelalterliche Reiterschild, p. 131.
56 In the manuscripts in the tradition of Johannes Liechtenauer, the combat action evolves from the mounted combat with lance and sword towards the dismounted duel with spear, sword and dagger, which can be ended by wrestling or the fight on the ground.
57 St. George was one of the most popular saints of the Middle Ages and a common patron saint particularly for matters of nobility and chivalry. In the fencing books, the St. George’s Cross appears not only as here, in armoured combat, but also as a sign on the big shields for the judicial duel according to Franconian and Swabian law, as we see it with Hans Talhoffer and Paulus Kal. There it appears on both the shields themselves and on the clothing of the fighters (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. icon 394a, f. 53v–86r). The duellists in the older part of the Augsburg manuscript Cod.I.6.4o2 (Codex Wallerstein) also wear surcoats with crosses; however, the colour variations are larger: crosses in red on green, white on red and red on white appear just as frequently as completely monochrome garments.
58 Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. I.6.4°.2.
59 In the Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten Handschriften des Mittelalters, this part of the manucript is dated to ca. 1420–30 (p. 110)—although this assumption seems to be rather late.
60 MÜLLER/KUNTER: Europäische Helme, p. 10.
61 NOWAKOWSKI: Arms and Armour in the Medieval Teutonic Order’s State in Prussia. p. 91ff.
62 For instance in the codex 44A8, Rome: Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana, on f. 54r.
63 BOEHEIM: Handbuch der Waffenkunde, p. 305.
64 Particularly the Copenhagen codex Thott 290 2° or the Königsegg manuscript Hs. XIX, 17–3.
65 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 1507 and Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, KK 5012.
66 Munich: f. 7v, Vienna: f. 11v.
67 BOEHEIM: Handbuch der Waffenkunde, p. 295.
68 See for instance Talhoffer, Königsegg Codex Hs. XIX, 17–3, pp. 40–42.
69 OAKESHOTT: Records of the Medieval Sword, p. 157.
70 OAKESHOTT: The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, p. 65.
71 On the subject of sword-physics see also LAIBLE: Das Schwert, p. 43ff.
72 WANKE: “Anderthalbhänder – Zweihänder – Langes Schwert”, p. 144.
73 Glasgow Museums, R. L. Scott Collection, E.1939.65.354.
74 Zewerfen mit dem knopf / Bistu ein starcker man vnd hetest gern end vnd wilt riterliche[n] komen vo[n] aler deiner wer allain vo[n] dem degen so mach dir eine[n] grosen knopf an dein schwert der darab lauft vnd nim dein schwert in die lincken hand beÿ deim gehultz vnd leg es auf den arm vnd dein spies in die rechten hand zu dem schuß vnd den schilt las valen oder nim den spies zu dem schwert als du den zutritzst so nim den knopf vo[n] dem schwert vnd wirf in vnd wen er das weren wil so scheus im zu mit dem spies oder mit dem schwert zwischen zwaien fingern oder halt das schwert weliches du wilt das dir nutz seÿ / bist du der krencker so las in ferwerfen vnd verschiesen das versetz im mit dem schilt vnd arwait mit deiner wer das er nit zu dir kom als ich dich vor gelernet hab. (To throw with the pommel. If you are a strong man, and you want to put an end to it and get rid of your weapons—except the dagger—in a chivalrous way, so have a large pommel made on your sword, which can be removed from it. Take your sword in the left hand by the hilt and put it on your arm. Take your spear in the right hand for the throw and drop your shield, or take the spear together with the sword. If you then step forward, take the pommel off the sword, and cast it. If he wants to ward this off, so throw either the spear or the sword towards him, between two fingers, or keep the sword, just as you like and it may be useful to you. If you are the weaker one, so let him cast or throw. Displace this with the shield and attack with your weapons so that he cannot come to you, as I have taught you before.)
75 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 3712.
76 Zewerffen mit dem knopff
Bistu ein starcker man vnd hetest gernn endt vnd wilt riderlichen komen von aler deiner wer allain von dem degen so mach dir einen grosen knopff an dein schwert der darab lauft vnd nim dein schwert in die linckhen handt beÿ dem gehiltz vnd legs auff dein arm vnd dein spieß in die rechten handt zu dem schus vnd den spies [!] laß falen den spies zu dem schwert als du dem zu drist so nim dein knopff von dem schwert vnd wirff in vnd wen er das weren wil so scheus im zu mit dem spies oder mit dem schwert zwichsen zweÿen fingernn oder halt das schwert welchs du wilt das dir nutz seÿ bistu der krenckher so laß in verwerffen vnd verschiesen das versetz im mit dem schilt vnd arbait mit deiner wer das er nit zu dir kan als Ich dich vor gelernnt hab
77 Rostock, Universitätsbibliothek, Mss. var. 82.
78 Bistu ein starck man, vnnd wilt ritterlichen kummen vonn aller deiner wer biß ann degen, mach dir ein großenn knopf an dein Schwert, der da ab lauft, vnnd nim dein schwert in die linckenn handt, beÿ dem gehiltz, vnnd legs auf denn arm, vnnd de[n] Spies in die Rechtenn hanndt, tzu dem schus, vnnd denn schildt las fallenn. Oder nim denn Spies tzu dem schwert, als du dann tzu tritst, so nim denn knopf vom schwert, vnnd wirf im tzu, wen er das weren wil, so scheus im tzu mit dem Spies oder mit dem schwert. Bistu der krencker so las Inn verwerffenn vorschießen, das versetz im mitt dem schilt, vnnd arbeit mit deiner wer, das er nit zu kom, als ich dich vor gelert hab.
79 Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Thott 290 2°.
80 Inventory number A 168. Southern Germany, around 1500. Length 123 cm, width 18.5 cm. The Katalog der Leibrüstkammer, II. Teil refers to this sword as a “fencing sword”, a “type of sporting arm, documented in the fencing literature” (p. 186, fig. p. 96). Nevertheless, this is rather doubtful due to the acute point. The ricasso in the middle of the blade, however, makes it ideal for use in the “armoured hand”, i. e. with the left hand in a steel gauntlet grasping the blade.