Europa Militaria Special #8

Author: Gerry Embleton
Publisher: The Crowood Press, Wiltshire
ISBN: 1-86126-371-6
Price: Listed as L12.95 / $22.95US. We got ours through Amazon.com.uk and paid about $22 with shipping

96 pages, quality soft cover. Loads of photos and 4 pages of redraws from primary sources by Gerry E.

Review:
As usual, Gerry E. has come through with another exemplary work. Sticking specifically to the period 1000-1500, the book gives a passing nod to the Vikings in the intro and then dives into the period covered with discussion and recreation of Bayeux Tapestry-period equipment, ending with the Lanskenechts. Unfortunately, this last bit is one of my complaints of the book, that Mr. E goes directly from pre-Granson equipment directly to the full-blown Landskenect as depicted in the "Triumph of Maximillian", leaping over the interim period and transitional changes. (Sorry Jamie!)

Expect the same high quality, informative text as was found in the "Medieval Soldier", and the same glorious photos. A new direction in the text of this book is the stress placed on how these reconstructions are based on available research, and as such may or may not be historically correct. Mr. E. comments to this effect repeatedly:

"...a growing awareness of how little trustworthy evidence remains, and of how important it is to be conscious of how much we don't know."

and later:

"We frequently build conjectural reconstructions on flimsy evidence which, by repetition, becomes accepted as fact. We can never be sure that a collection of buckles at the waist of a skeleton belonged to a belt being worn, every buckle still in its original position- or to a belt or belts folded up and laid on top of the corspe and now scattered by the passing of time."

Still, Mr. E is as careful as always, and the photos are inspiring. I especially love the shot of the 2 tourney-bound late 14th C. knights--having seen this period done so often and so badly by so many, it is breathtaking to see a lentner look like a lentner and not a polyester bathrobe, and a gilded crest that didn't look as though it had been constructed of toilet-tissue rolls and duct tape.

Although they occuply only 10% of the book, it was good to see discussion of and reconstructions of women, their clothing and roles. This inclusion and the pages devoted to topics such as "Games and Music", "Cloth, Dyes and Sumptuary Laws", and "Livery" round out and amplify the material presented. A Tailspiece on "Recreating Medieval Costume" was very welcome, and the Acknowledgements were telling, thanking members of CoSG, John Howe, Wolfsbane, The White Company, the Black Prince's Household, Lincoln Castle Bowmen and Lys et Lion, and others for their respective contributions.

As good as the book is in the majority, there were some things that lept out at me- the fact that few of the reenactors appeared to be wearing woven hose, mostly relying on fulled jersey, and in the case of the Landskenect some shockingly thin cotton knit looking hose. The pointed mantle hoods reappear in abundance from the Medieval Soldier book, and I would love to see more documentation on them. I think the worst moment is the photo of the woman having her hair brushed out by another woman in mixed company. I completely disagree that this would be a "common sight" in a military camp, and consider this single instance the worst moment of the book.

All in all this is another stunningly beautiful and useful book which belongs in every reenactor's library. If you go through Amazon.com.UK as we did, the book will be delivered to your door in a week or 10 days at a total cost less than the cover price. Consider it money well spent.

Gwen

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:
I think the worst moment is the photo of the woman having her hair brushed out by another woman in mixed company. I completely disagree that this would be a "common sight" in a military camp, and consider this single instance the worst moment of the book.

---

Perrhaps things changed over time or by nationality. The book "Montallou" by Emanuell LeRoy Ladurie which is a redaction of 14th century French inquisitional records presents grooming of hair, including delousing, as an inherently social activity, mixing both gender and social classes.

Just a thought...

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

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org

I'd like to see the reference in its entirety.

Of course this is in a heretical village in France near Pammiers. They all knew each other and that may make all the difference when compared to a military camp.

By the way, I love this board! Where else do you get to discuss the delousing practices of 14th century French heretical pesants?

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

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org

Montaillou, the Promised Land of Error
Emmanuel LeRoy Ladruie, Barbara Bray (transl.) ISBN: 0394729641
Vintage Books, 1979

However, with all its merits, this study is a typical example of "micro-history" so greatly loved by the French Annales school of the 60s-70s. It should be remembered that it describes a small rural community's habits and social arrangements in the Pyrenees in the beginning of the 1300s, who were being accused by heresy AND the records were made for the Bishop of Pamiers by official Inquisitorial investigators...
Just to give the proper context whether you can generalize from these data...

Take care,

Anna

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Anna Kovacs ]

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

Anna: Thanks, that's my swing on it. I'll walk around in my jammies in front of my friends, but I won't go to the local market dressed that way.

You said

quote:

---

There was a reason why women's hair was covered in the Middle Ages (of course, in most cases that did not apply to camp followers...)

---

In the case of the Red Company, all of our camp followers are wives and honest women, and we strictly enforce the "covered hair edit" for women over the age of 13, even for maidens.

I quoted this passage before in a thread about Joan of Arc:

quote:

---

“...at Chinon, in the presence of the King, she "kneeled and doffed her hood."

The numerous onlookers were surprised. Many took Joan for a boy. The others were astonished by this hair cropped round on the head of a girl. The devil, it had been said, dances on the hair of women whose head was unveiled. If Joan wasn't a boy then what was she? "Women of every age and every condition," says Anatole France very correctly, "took great care to pull their hair under the hennin, the coif, the veil, so that not a strand stuck out. And this free hair on a woman's head was a strange thing at the time...."

---

Adrian Harmand, "Jeanne d'Arc".

Anna: Thanks, that's my swing on it. I'll walk around in my jammies in front of my friends, but I won't go to the local market dressed that way.

You said

quote:

---

There was a reason why women's hair was covered in the Middle Ages (of course, in most cases that did not apply to camp followers...)

---

In the case of the Red Company, all of our camp followers are wives and honest women, and we strictly enforce the "covered hair edit" for women over the age of 13, even for maidens.

I quoted this passage before in a thread about Joan of Arc:

quote:

---

“...at Chinon, in the presence of the King, she "kneeled and doffed her hood."

The numerous onlookers were surprised. Many took Joan for a boy. The others were astonished by this hair cropped round on the head of a girl. The devil, it had been said, dances on the hair of women whose head was unveiled. If Joan wasn't a boy then what was she? "Women of every age and every condition," says Anatole France very correctly, "took great care to pull their hair under the hennin, the coif, the veil, so that not a strand stuck out. And this free hair on a woman's head was a strange thing at the time...."

---

Adrian Harmand, "Jeanne d'Arc".

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

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org

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

I don't know how to ask this without raising eyebrows/blood pressure, but - you have women over the age of 13 who are maidens? Unless they are nuns... have you got documentation on that?

seriously, though this sounds stupid, wouldn't women of 15 be considered spinsters, possibly unmarriageable? I may be mixing up periods (NPI, dammit!) though. If so, I most humbly beg pardon.

Ziad

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by allahuakbar:

seriously, though this sounds stupid, wouldn't women of 15 be considered spinsters, possibly unmarriageable? I may be mixing up periods (NPI, dammit!) though. If so, I most humbly beg pardon.

---

-I dont have any of my references for this with me here, or at all accessible, but if my hazy memory serves, no, not in the lower classes, at least. IIRC, the upper classes were the ones that had marriages of young girls (betrothal as children), but the lower (and middle?) classes were not in the same kind of power-struggle-thru-marriage, and 20 years was more average.

(I took half of a semester class on 'women in medieval society' 3 years ago, but no longer have my notes or texts. I think that one of the main texts on the subject of marriage was 'The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest" by Duby, but it was mostly on the 11th-13th centuries).

And there are other factors, like locally uneven gender ratios (too many men, or too many women), that can change marriage ages, chances of marriage, or remarriage after being widowed.

Some women *chose* not to marry for a number of reasons- they feared ill-treatment by a husband who had legal "ownership" of them, their children and their dowries, they feared the danger of childbirth, wanted to pursue a trade, etc. "Spinster" has gained a perjorative spin in the modern age. Spinning was one of several very suitable and respectable ways for a single woman to earn a living in the medieval period, along with other textile arts such as embroidery, weaving and narrow-ware work.

"Unmarriageable" often boiled down to not having a dowry more than having a physical defect. These women were often interred in a convent against their will so as to take them out of the marriage market and obviate the need for a dowry. For some women this was a blessing, but some women could not cope with enforced chastity and the record abounds with tales of smuggled lovers and clandestine hanky panky in convents. Some hilarious examples may be found in Boccaccio's "Decameron"

As stated, the records indicate that the labouring classes married much later (20's to early 30's is commonly cited) as the individuals' services were required by the family until then. A young man might have to wait until he had helped his family expand and/or built up sufficient vested equity in the family holdings before he could split some of that equity off and start his own household, or add a wife to the family. A young woman in curtailed financial circumstances might have to wait to find a man who would take her without a dowry, or wait until her father died and she had money for a dowry.

Records seem to indicate that the upper classes viewed women very much as pawns and broodmares, using "child brides" to cement treaties and unite and tie families together. Very often these women were expected to begin producing heirs at a preposterously young age, and in doing so many died in childbirth. Sometimes these women took sanctuary in convents to keep themselves from becoming political pawns.

I know that is a lot of inference to make from pretty flimsy recollection - and of course what is true for Tuscany may be laughable in Gascony and incomprehensible for Cumbria. So... I thought I had a point there, but it seems to have evaporated. I'm going to go fix coffee now. Anybody else want some?

Ziad

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

Having recently read a book on the topic - "Medieval Households", by David Herlihy ISBN 0-674-56376-X, it does vary from reagion to region. As a rough and ready rule though, it went from Later in life in Classical Antiquity, to Early, to Later. The Church was a major factor in postponing the age of marriage. Even when people would contract marriages young, they would not expect them (and often specificaly forbade consumation) until what we would consider later adolesence (15 for women on average during the worst phase of this), and as a general rule by the late middle ages the average age for marriage (for the middle classes & below)had risen to 30-ish for men, and 20-ish for women, due to socio-economic pressures (the male had to establish a household, and the woman contribute to her dowery).

Thge largest pressure for ealy marriage was indded in the upper classes, for reasons of familial advancement. This remained fairly constant throughout the Medieval and early Modern period.

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

Try to remember that the concept of "children" as we know it (carefree, irresponsible, etc.) was unknown. "Children" were expected to become a contributing member of the family as soon as possible. Children would begin herding geese or doing textile work when they were 3, caring for younger siblings by 5 (in Scotland in the late MA, 5 year olds were already knitting), etc.

I think the terms used may have thrown you off; "children" were really treated and considered "small adults" by the time they were 8 or 10.