13th-15th C. Horse Harness Tournament Pendants

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

Being here in this forum and whatching all that is posted, is equivalent to visiting (countless) museums ... believe me

Well, 'Nando,

It is with all due respect that I dare note that not one single museum in the world can present its attenders with anything nearing either the complexity or variety of the stuff, be it real or in documents, that our fantastic archives can contribute to the forum.

Best, and simultaneously thankful,
Michl

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Well, 'Nando,

It is with all due respect that I dare note that not one single museum in the world can present its attenders with anything nearing either the complexity or variety of the stuff, be it real or in documents, that our fantastic archives can contribute to the forum.

Best, and simultaneously thankful,
Michl

Absolutely Michael!!! and thank you so much for this topic! This is what is even more exciting than many of the arms themselves is this kind of esoterica seldom, if ever, discussed in the literature. I had never heard of these before.
It sounds like perhaps in these tournaments certain knights had 'sponsors' ? Obviously the 'cliche' of the lady showing favor to a certain knight with an item of hers carried by him is well known in the books and movies etc. but this sounds almost like sports sponsoring .
I especially enjoy the great excerpts from these references you and Jasper have shown and the examples. Fascinating!

Kronkew has perfectly described another aspect or phenomenon of the study of medieval knightly battles I had not been fully aware of, that there are few, if any, archaeological remnants of these battles . I do look forward to more entries on this and the attachments.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It sounds like perhaps in these tournaments certain knights had 'sponsors' ? ..

... Ah, most certainly Jim ... in their own (period) manner

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...Kronkew has perfectlyscribed another aspect or phenomenon of the study of medieval knightly battles I had not been fully aware of, that there are few, if any, archaeological remnants of these battles ..

This riddle must surely be a matter for discussion among historians and archeologists. In my poorest perspective a couple of reasons must be in the origin of such mistery. First and, as suggested, spots where battles took place are both imprecise and rather disperse, covering vast areas, thus not enabling for concentration of battle remnants. I guess that where conflicts took place in more concentrated or inequivocal areas, like sieging or assaulting fortifications, probabilities of finding abandoned stuff are higher. I am thinking, for one, of the number of crossbow bolts i can see (and acquire) in Lisbon arms shops, found in the outskirts of the local Moorish/Christian castle, origin of various historical conflicts. Surely objects of higher value are also found there, but not exposed by the dozen in public shops . I suspect another reason for not finding things in battle fields out in the open is because they are actually found by anonimous locals, on grounds of picking souvenirs, for the various reasons, right after events take place, leaving no left overs for 'official finders'.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

... Ah, most certainly Jim ... in their own (period) manner This riddle must surely be a matter for discussion among historians and archeologists. In my poorest perspective a couple of reasons must be in the origin of such mistery. First and, as suggested, spots where battles took place are both imprecise and rather disperse, covering vast areas, thus not enabling for concentration of battle remnants. I guess that where conflicts took place in more concentrated or inequivocal areas, like sieging or assaulting fortifications, probabilities of finding abandoned stuff are higher. I am thinking, for one, of the number of crossbow bolts i can see (and acquire) in Lisbon arms shops, found in the outskirts of the local Moorish/Christian castle, origin of various historical conflicts. Surely objects of higher value are also found there, but not exposed by the dozen in public shops . I suspect another reason for not finding things in battle fields out in the open is because they are actually found by anonimous locals, on grounds of picking souvenirs, for the various reasons, right after events take place, leaving no left overs for 'official finders'.

Well explained Nando, and the things you suggest make perfect sense. I know that often in archaeological situations it has often been difficult to locate precise locations as rivers have changed course or ceased altogether and terrain has changed. Narrative accounts often describe landmarks or topography which no longer exist.
It seems some time ago there was a periodical (maybe still is) named "After the Battle" where historical battle sites were sought and shown as they stand today. It seems that after a battle the weaponry and valuables were taken away by both victors and subsequent scavengers, but what became of the debris and horse carcasses etc.?

I recall years ago archaeologists excavating crusades locations found the remains of a knight, still mounted on his horse, both riddled with the arrows that killed them and in still where they fell .

[Matchlock]

Hi Jim and 'Nando,

Actually many of these items are excavated year after year at former tournament sites, along age-old routes and in other places.
Unfortunately, natural erosion, the plows of generations of farmers, the hands of digging moles, mice etc. have destroyed the original find contexts to such an extent that many things are now scattered way too widely to identify their original coherences.

Best,
Michael/Michl

[cornelistromp]

statements in relation to the findingplace and carrier of pendants.

Nick Griffiths claims in his article Harness pendants and associated fitting;.
it is noticable that the pendants are frequently of poor quality and may well have been used by retainers, rather than the Knights and nobles who displayed their arms on cloth horse covers( trappers) and on their own surcoats, banners, etc. Even their saddles might be painted with their coat of arms.

Although both pendants and mounts were made of copper alloy, the pin which held the two together was usually of iron; with the movement of the harness, the loop of the pendant frequently wore through, with the consequent loss of the object. It is therefor no surprise that most pendants occur as isolated finds, often from rural areas, few are found on urban, castle or manorial sites.

The pendants may not have been worn by knights during a tournament but are thus a basic part of the horse harness of the helpers, the squire.


the pendantmounts were attached with rivets on the breast band (peytrel), 6 or more on each side, at the rear strap together with bells, 3 on each site, and occasionally a single larger pendant hung from the brow-band.

best,
jasper

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Absolutely Michael!!! and thank you so much for this topic! This is what is even more exciting than many of the arms themselves is this kind of esoterica seldom, if ever, discussed in the literature. I had never heard of these before.
It sounds like perhaps in these tournaments certain knights had 'sponsors' ? Obviously the 'cliche' of the lady showing favor to a certain knight with an item of hers carried by him is well known in the books and movies etc. but this sounds almost like sports sponsoring .
I especially enjoy the great excerpts from these references you and Jasper have shown and the examples. Fascinating!

Kronkew has perfectly described another aspect or phenomenon of the study of medieval knightly battles I had not been fully aware of, that there are few, if any, archaeological remnants of these battles . I do look forward to more entries on this and the attachments.

Hi Jim,


After all I have read and studied in Anglistics seminars year after year in the 1970's and early 1980's (I took my State Exam at Regensburg University in 1982), and I sure had my fill reading on idealized medieval Minne - which meant the absolutely idealistic, high-held and untouchable ideal of platonic love to an already married (usually to a king!) and hence completely out-of-reach courtly lady - a kind of ove of course totally unaccepted by the instution of The Roman Catholic Church. Such a love basically bound to fail was the famous tale of Guinevere (the wife of King Arthur) and Sir Lancelot of the Lake (du Lac) from Thomas Malory's magnum opus Morte d'Arthure.
Nobody won, they all died in gruesome gores. All those both endlessly and mercilessly reiterated stereotype rituals (e.g. They walked in the blood of their enemies up to their knees, ... then they hearde (!) masse in the morning, etc. etc.): to me they were nothing but a manifestation of a long-since unstoppabable decline of knightly ideals once held as high as the mystic Holy Grail was for hundreds of years. To hear and see them presented so low down and trampled into the dirt thus openly just blew my mind ... It was both a bitter and tragic swan song on knightly ideas once so noble ...

Anyone here has ever read the original 15th c.Medieval Englisch version of Le Morte d'Arture? Malory wrote it during many years of imprisonment. If you did not, you sure a very lucky guy retaining a sound, sober and sane mind.



Now, was there jealousy in those days? Oh yeah, those folks sure shared all the most basic ardent feeings of the human soul and mind! And they were ready to massacre literally anybody for the strong feelings in their souls ... and to take the final blame as well.

Was there financial sponsoring? The sources do not mention such a term way too profane for the medieval mind - but yes, this one humble Mediavist here on the forum is absolutely sure because all those basic human feelings shook the Medieval world and and its knights to the very
bone of their earthly existence 500 years ago!


With my very best wishes,
Michael

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Jim,


After all I have read and studied in Anglistics seminars year after year in the 1970's and early 1980's (I took my State Exam at Regensburg University in 1982), and I sure had my fill reading on idealized medieval Minne - which meant the absolutely idealistic, high-held and untouchable ideal of platonic love to an already married (usually to a king!) and hence completely out-of-reach courtly lady - a kind of ove of course totally unaccepted by the instution of The Roman Catholic Church. Such a love basically bound to fail was the famous tale of Guinevere (the wife of King Arthur) and Sir Lancelot of the Lake (du Lac) from Thomas Malory's magnum opus Morte d'Arthure.
Nobody won, they all died in gruesome gores. All those both endlessly and mercilessly reiterated stereotype rituals (e.g. They walked in the blood of their enemies up to their knees, ... then they hearde (!) masse in the morning, etc. etc.): to me they were nothing but a manifestation of a long-since unstoppabable decline of knightly ideals once held as high as the mystic Holy Grail was for hundreds of years. To hear and see them presented so low down and trampled into the dirt thus openly just blew my mind ... It was both a bitter and tragic swan song on knightly ideas once so noble ...

Anyone here has ever read the original 15th c.Medieval Englisch version of Le Morte d'Arture? Malory wrote it during many years of imprisonment. If you did not, you sure a very lucky guy retaining a sound, sober and sane mind.



Now, was there jealousy in those days? Oh yeah, those folks sure shared all the most basic ardent feeings of the human soul and mind! And they were ready to massacre literally anybody for the strong feelings in their souls ... and to take the final blame as well.

Was there financial sponsoring? The sources do not mention such a term way too profane for the medieval mind - but yes, this one humble Mediavist here on the forum is absolutely sure because all those basic human feelings shook the Medieval world and and its knights to the very
bone of their earthly existence 500 years ago!


With my very best wishes,
Michael

Michael, sorry for the delay in responding here. What an amazing insight and perspective into these much heralded times, as well as being beautifully written! It is clear to see how well you know these times, after a lifetime of study, it is if you were there!

There truly are other sides to the romanticized and flowery tales told in Victorian literature and of course in our times, movies on knighthood, chivalry, warfare and the tournaments.

I wanted to thank you as well for all the time and effort you always have given to furnish us with such amazing illustrations and material to accompany the fascinating things you post and describe.

All of this gives these wonderful artifacts powerful dimension and us the opportunity to experience moments in history long ago from someone who knows them better than anyone.

[cornelistromp]

remark about a diamond-shaped shield;

diamond shaped shields as the example of peter finer were almost exclusively worn by women!

A beautiful example is seen in the painting of Lucas van leiden where on the diamond shield of the woman, her family coat of arms and the coat of arms of her husband, for the husband in landsknecht oufit see left painting, are united.


see also falconry combined with fondling, why not?
The peytrel and the rear strap of the womens horse harness are packed with pendants.

best,
Jasper

[Jim McDougall]

Jasper, than you so much for these additional, and definitely intriguing examples which illustrate entirely unexpected dimension in this fascinating topic. In my notes to Michael I was completely remiss in not properly acknowledging the outstanding contributions you always place in tandem with his prolific entries. Thank you as well for helping us learn on these wonderful medieval and renaissance items and topics!

[cornelistromp]

Hi Jim,

I see it rather like this; Contributions from different angles from different forum members can! give a more complete and higher-quality picture.

best,