# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This process is automatic. Your browser will redirect to your requested content shortly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Godong/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

In medieval times, the role of the king was to own land, lead his country and people in times of war and set laws. A king was, essentially, the supreme ruler of his land.

Medieval kings had systems of governance and control that were formed primarily with the help of other people within their societies. Medieval kings, for instance, allowed lords, barons, knights and other members of society to live on their land, provided those members of societies helped to form and mobilize armies for the kings when necessary. Kings also helped lead their armies into battle when settling disputes with neighboring kingdoms, and they were the sole individuals responsible for doling out justice as they saw fit. As in modern societies, kings had materialistic ways of expressing their wealth. They did so by living in large castles, owning large estates and employing low-level workers. Kings also maintained a magnificent and luxurious wardrobe, and they would often buy exotic goods and riches like jewels and fine food.

Medieval Kings Over the Years

Medieval kings were prominent figures in the Medieval Period, which lasted over 1,000 years, say authors at Medievalchronicles.com. Medieval kings were similar to modern-day rulers in the sense that they had considerable amounts of power and authority over the people who they ruled ove. Medieval kings were found in England and Europe, and they had various sized empires and areas of territorial control. In the earlier stages of the Medieval Period, kings generally had smaller areas of territorial control. The earliest kings came from Wessex in England, and a little while later kings came from other areas around England and Denmark. As the Medieval Period continued, the geography shifted to Medieval kings from England and France. Over time, the power of Medieval kings gradually expanded, as kings began to fight wars with other kingdoms and acquired the lands of neighboring kings and kingdoms. It was not uncommon for kings to invade foreign kingdoms and take over the lands of rulers there. An example of this is William the Conqueror, who was initially a French king. William conquered the English armies in the Battle of Hastings, and consequently introduced the feudal system to England. In doing so, he was able to control the entire kingdom that he asserted dominance over.

Famous Kings

During the Medieval Period, there were quite a few kings. While some had short-lived reigns or relinquished their rule to other, more powerful leaders, others rose to power and gained fame and notoriety for their acts and accomplishments. In addition to William the Conqueror, William Rufus, King Henry I, Richard the Lionheart, King Edward I and King Richard II are some notable medieval kings. Richard the Lionheart was an English king who was born in 1157 and reigned until 1159. Richard the Lionheart ruled from 1189 to 1199. During the time of his leadership, he was known for his physical and emotional strength and bad temper. Richard was one of several siblings who ended up in multiple arguments and battles with his father, King Henry II. Richard the Lionheart was a combative medieval king who spent much of his time fighting battles and acquiring lands owned by other kingdoms.

MORE FROM REFERENCE.COM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In medieval times, the role of the king was to own land, lead his country and people in times of war and set laws. A king was, essentially, the supreme ruler of his land. Medieval kings had systems of governance and control that were formed primarily with the help of other people within their societies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
... Photos.com/Photos.com/Getty Images

The feudal system was first established in 1066 under the direction of William I, also known as William the Conqueror. The king in medieval England had many responsibilities to ensure the survival of his people and his lands. His reign over his feudal kingdom required tight ties with spiritual and military leaders who provided security and stability. The king maintained a strong pecking order, so inhabitants knew their places in the feudal system and remained dependent on his provisions, thwarting undesirable revolution. Medieval English kings strove to find the perfect balance between fear and respect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are the Functions of the King in Medieval England? | Synonym

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The feudal system was first established in 1066 under the direction of William I, also known as William the Conqueror. The king in medieval England had many responsibilities to ensure the survival of his people and his lands. His reign over his feudal kingdom required tight ties with spiritual and military leaders who ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What different titles were there for medieval nobility?

How do we define medieval nobility and what was the definition of medieval Nobility in medieval society ?

What was the role of different classes of nobles and nobility in medieval times?

What was a hereditary title and how did this system work?

What were the main Nobility of England and the rest of Europe?

Peerage and Hereditary Title

Peerage refers to the widely accepted system of hereditary titles in the Medieval era. The system was very popular in England but it was not exclusive to the region. A peerage may mean an entire group of nobles or individual titles and a noble under this system is called a peer.

Hereditary titles, on one hand, were used to address positions in the feudal hierarchy. These titles were passed on by virtue of blood, mainly concentrated on a specific lineage, from one generation to another.

Successors may inherit several titles at the same time. Some titles were older than the others that even if they were ranked lower, the people in these positions held a significant amount of influence compared to higher-ranked nobilities with fairly new titles.

Medieval Nobility Titles

The peerage of England differed greatly from that of France and Prussia. While England stuck to the five classes - Duke and Duchess, Marquess and Marchioness, Earl and Countess, Viscount and Viscountess, and Baron and Baroness - France and Prussia luxuriously pursued other titles, adding more layers to the already complicated hierarchy of nobilities.

The following noble titles were used in various parts of Europe:

Viceroy and Vicereine

Viceroys were royal officials who governed countries, city-states or colonies on behalf of monarchs (e.g. king, queen, prince or princess). Vice is a Latin prefix that connotes replacement or "a substitute of." Roi, on one hand, means king. Putting the two Latin terms together, you get the main function of a viceroy: the king's substitute or replacement.

A territory or province under the viceroy's jurisdiction was called vice royalty. Although viceroy is a generic term for both male and female royal representatives, a female viceroy in her own right (suo jure) and the wife of a viceroy were both referred to as vicereines.

The king, as well as rulers who wielded about the same influence as the king, held the right of appointing viceroys. From the Medieval times to the 18th century, the Habsburg crown appointed viceroys to Spain (provinces of Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre and Valencia), Italy (provinces Naples, Sicily and Sardinia) and Portugal.

Archduke and Archduchess

The Habsburg monarchs of Austria were the first ones to use the title of Archduke . Everyone who belonged to the Habsburg dynasty began to address their rulers in such a manner. The title was far more important than a duke and just a rank below the king.

Archdukes ruled territories called archduchies (singular: archduchy). An Archduke's wife or a female in the same position was referred to as an Archduchess. The term Archduke comes from an old French word archeduc (archidux in Latin), which means primary duke or a duke of authority.

Other European kingdoms had a different address for ranks below the king. Germany and Luxembourg used the term Grand Duke instead of Archduke.

Grand Duke and Grand Duchess

The titles of Grand Duke and Grand Duchess were popularly used for minor monarchs in Germanic countries and throughout Western Europe. Like the Archduke, the Grand Duke was second only to the king and more powerful than a regular duke.

A monarch's children would be called Grand Princes, but in several translations they were addressed as Grand Dukes. In other parts of Medieval Europe such as in Bosnia, military commanders who served the crown were seen in the same light as Grand Dukes. The Granduke's wife or a female who inherited this important position was a Grand Duchess.

In the standard five-class peerage system prevalent in Medieval England, the Duke stood at the top. Not only did he have the highest hereditary title in the peerage, but he was also the most powerful of the king's peers. The Duke was the de jure leader of the aristocracy.

In fact, Duke is rooted from the Latin word dux, meaning leader. The feminine version of the title is Duchess. The first ever duchy approximately began in 1337 in the British Isles. Towards the end of the 15th century, there were around 14 ducal titles bestowed upon well-known noble houses including Clarence, Cornwall, Ireland, Somerset, Buckingham, York and Lancaster to name a few.

Nobility titles were handed down through the elite bloodlines

Nobles could inherit several titles at the same time

There were five nobility classes in medieval England - Duke & Duchess, Marquess and Marchioness, Earl and Countess, Viscount and Viscountess, and Baron and Baroness

Marquess and Marchioness

Next in rank to the Duke was the Marquess, who had more power and influence over the earl. A female noble in the marquisate or the wife of a Marquess would be known as a Marchioness. In France, the Marquess and the Marchioness were referred to as Marquis and Marquise respectively.

Margrave and Margravine

Military commanders tasked to defend the Holy Roman Empire's provincial borders received a special title inherited in certain families: Margrave. Soon enough, leaders of the Imperial Diet started calling themselves Margraves until the Empire dissipated early in the 19th century. Margravine was the address given to a Margrave's wife.

Earl and Countess

The Earl was the third most powerful noble in the peerage. His rank may be lower than a Duke and a Marquess but he still exerted some power over Viscounts and Barons. His wife was addressed as Countess.

Viscount and Viscountess

The Viscount (Vicomte in French) held the fourth most important hereditary aristocratic title. With more influence and authority compared to a Baron, elites outside of the peerage paid homage to nobles in this position. The female equivalent of a Viscount, as well as his wife, was called a Viscountess.

Baron and Baroness

Of all members of the aristocracy, Barons had the least influence. Though their title could be hereditary, they ranked last in the peerage system.

A female Baron was called a Baroness. France and Prussia (Now Russia) had more Nobility titles and it was more complexed.

Viceroys and Vicereine were important medieval nobilty who could govern a country.

Medieval Nobility titles such as Archduke and Archduchess originated in Austria.

The Medieval Nobility title Grand Duke and Duchess were used for minor Monarchs.

The Duke was at the very top of the Medieval Nobility in England

Other Medieval Nobility Titles

A Baronet (female: Baronetess) was not part of the peerage even though he possessed a hereditary title. Knights, Dames and other individuals conferred with non-hereditary titles were considered as non-nobles. However, they did own lands and have a limited amount of power.

Vassals

Vassals were individuals who swore fealty and allegiance to a monarch or noble. The terms and conditions of the lord-vassal relationship were governed by the feudal system. In exchange for their loyalty and protection, vassals received portions of land otherwise known as fiefs.

There were two types of vassals: an upper group of powerful and influential nobles personally connected to the crown and a lower group of landless knights obliged to serve the peerage for the sake of resources.

Noblemen and Noblewomen

Men and women born to the Medieval nobility were called noblemen and noblewomen. They were more privileged and esteemed compared to other members of society. While nobility was generally hereditary, there were instances in the Medieval period where commoners became nobles through royal favour, military achievements or acquiring wealth and power.

The Marquess and Marchioness was below the Duke only in Medieval Nobility importance Barons were the least powerful Medieval Nobility and ranked last in the peerage system

Knights could be Medieval Vassals and part of the Nobility Armigers were not born into the Medieval Nobility but had their own coat of arms

The feudal system organized medieval people and Medieval Nobility Medieval Nobility were below the King and Kings imposed the structure of the Nobility

Other Positions and Titles Outside the Peerage

Supporting and coexisting with the nobles were individuals well-respected in society despite the circumstances of their birth. Certain people were allowed to use a coat of arms. Called armigers, folks in this category earned the privilege through a grant, matriculation or hereditary right. Landed individuals with a degree of social standing were collectively referred to as Gentry.

Most of the people born to this class had a gentle or good upbringing. They also had connections to the manor, the clergy and old families. Finally, a tenant-in-chief was a person who received a fief or land tenure directly from the king or his heir as opposed to vassals who were awarded tenure from another aristocrat.

Rigid though the feudal system may be because of the way it divided people into various classes, on the whole Medieval society was well-organized and set clear-cut parameters for each class. Monarchs back then deemed it best to impose such a structure so as to maintain order.

We hope you enjoyed the information and facts of medieval nobility in this article, if you would like to learn more about the specific members of the medieval nobility such as a Duke or Duchess please click the links at the bottom of this medieval nobility page that will take you directly to the correct page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What different titles were there for medieval nobility? How do we define medieval nobility and what was the definition of medieval Nobility in medieval society ? What was the role of different classes of nobles and nobility in medieval times? What was a hereditary title and how did this system work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Merchants in the middle ages were business people who participated in retail and trade. The term "merchant" comes from the Latin term "mercer" which means trafficking and from the French term "mercies" which means wares. Thus, the medieval merchant was seen as both a trader and trafficker of wares across countries. The middle ages merchant sourced for his products during his travels and would then sell them in markets and shops or at fairs.
Early Beginnings
Medieval society divided itself between three societal categories that included the clergy, the peasants and the fighters. Merchants were not considered as part of these three categorizations and were largely discriminated against. The clergy, the peasants and the nobility considered the merchant as one who was seeking to enrich himself at the expense of society. Meanwhile this same society increasingly depended on merchants for the distribution of much needed goods.

In the early emergence of the merchant class, the clergy was vehemently opposed to merchant activities such as banking and trading. The clergy convinced the community that these activities were evil and against God's will. As such, people would blame the merchants for natural catastrophes including disease, floods or famine as a punishment to the community from God.

Notably, the nobility were particularly disdainful of the merchants who, in the eyes of the nobility, were perceived as misers. The nobility's behavior was in contrast to that of the merchants; the noblemen were known to be spendthrifts while the merchants were keen on calculating the losses and profits of their trade.

The role of the merchant became even more important and entrenched in society in the wake of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. The nobility became richer and the peasants were better placed to purchase goods that the merchants came with from other countries. The main merchant traders were the Genoese and Venetians.

Merchants in the middle ages engaged in fierce confrontations over trade routes, through which they brought in good such as silk, perfumes, foods and spices. The Crusades, some of the bloodiest wars of the middle ages were not just about religion, they were also about different groups of merchants seeking to gain control of the major trade routes.

Merchants earned a position as those who worked, but their social standing was certainly much higher than that of the peasants. As the peasants toiled in the field and the lords made merry in their castles, the merchants in the middle ages were busy travelling across the Mediterranean and Europe. They went as far as Spain, England, France, Russia and Scandinavia as well as Asia. By the fourteenth century, merchants were some of the wealthiest people in society; they held influential positions in local government and their children intermarried with those of the noblemen.
Impact of Merchant Trade
As the merchants crossed foreign boundaries, they would face resistance from local rulers. However, both the rulers and the merchants found a way out of this quagmire; the merchants would offer gifts to the local rulers or pay a fine. The local rulers would also tax the goods that merchants traded within their territory.

To be sure, merchants increasingly became not part of middle ages feudal community, but influencers of this society. It is through their trade initiatives that towns and entire cities were built and developed for example the city of Paris in France. The towns that were initially small and tied to the feudal system became self-sustaining and broke away from the feudal system to become independent states.

However, local lords did not take the independence of towns and cities lightly. Merchants, the lords and sometimes the king would fight over land issues because the merchants had become wealthy enough to purchase their own lands. The king and the local lords charged the merchants heftily for them to acquire land rights. The merchants and other town leaders sought to have towns that were independent from local lords and that were led by a mayor who was democratically elected.

Tensions also emerged between local merchants and those who came into the towns for brief commercial activities. The local merchants in the middle ages could not keep up with the competitive edge that was accorded the merchant guilds.

The merchant associations or guilds had more goods and could deliver their services more efficiently compared to a single local trader. More and more people forsook the local merchants and opted to do business with the new suppliers who offered cheaper goods and services. Even as some merchants grew richer, many commercial towns were ruined as local merchants ran out of business.

Although the commercial activities of merchants gave rise to commercial cities and towns, these towns began to face unprecedented problems. These problems are similar to those faced by modern day urban cities; they included contagious disease, overcrowding and crime.
The Medieval Merchant Guilds
Merchants in the middle ages began to form merchant guilds, what we now know as associations or co-operatives. These guilds not only regulated and streamlined trade by they also made negotiations between the traders and local rulers easier. The main areas of contention were the taxes and levies that the local rulers imposed on the traders and the goods they traded.

The merchant guilds developed and established the rules of trade. Members of these guilds became influential in medieval society. For example, the main spokesperson of the merchant guild would often be appointed as the city or town mayor. The chief delegates of the guild would be appointed as the town Aldermen and other guild members became city or town burghers.

Common rules that the merchant guild established included a total ban on illegal trade by those who were not members of the guild. This was intended to make every merchant a member of the guild so that traders would work within this system.

Members who went contrary to the guild rules or charter would pay a fine. The merchant guild offered assistance to their members and their families, in the event of sickness of death. Guild members also received protection against damages caused to their goods, and possessions as they travelled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Merchants in the Middle Ages - The Finer Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Merchants in the middle ages were business people who participated in retail and trade. The term "merchant" comes from the Latin term "mercer" which means trafficking and from the French term "mercies" which means wares. Thus, the medieval merchant was seen as both a trader and trafficker of wares across countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trade and commerce in the medieval world developed to such an extent that even relatively small communities had access to weekly markets and, perhaps a day's travel away, larger but less frequent fairs, where the full range of consumer goods of the period was set out to tempt the shopper and small retailer. Markets and fairs were organised by large estate owners, town councils, and some churches and monasteries, who, granted a license to do so by their sovereign, hoped to gain revenue from stall holder fees and boost the local economy as shoppers used peripheral services. International trade had been present since Roman times but improvements in transportation and banking, as well as the economic development of northern Europe, caused a boom from the 9th century CE. English wool, for example, was sent in huge quantities to manufacturers in Flanders; the Venetians, thanks to the Crusades, expanded their trade interests to the Byzantine Empire and the Levant, and new financial instruments evolved which allowed even small investors to fund the trade expeditions which criss-crossed Europe by sea and land.

Markets & Shops

In villages, towns, and large cities which had been granted the privilege of a license to do so by their monarch, markets were regularly held in public squares (or sometimes triangles), in wide streets or even in purpose-built halls. Markets were also organised just outside many castles and monasteries. Typically held once or twice a week, larger towns might have a daily market which moved around different parts of the city depending on the day or have markets for specific goods like meat, fish, or bread. Sellers of particular goods, who paid an estate owner, the town, or borough council a fee for the privilege to have a stall, were typically set next to each other in areas so that competition was kept high. Sellers of meat and bread tended to be men, but women stallholders were often the majority, and they sold such staples as eggs, dairy products, poultry, and ale. There were middlemen and women known as regrators who bought goods from producers and sold them on to the market stallholders or producers might pay a vendor to sell their goods for them. Besides markets, sellers of wares also went knocking on the doors of private homes, and these were known as hucksters.

Trade of common, low-value goods remained a largely local affair because of the costs of transportation. Merchants had to pay tolls at certain points along the road and at key points like bridges or mountain passes so that only luxury goods were worth transportation over long distances. Moving goods by boat or ship was cheaper and safer than by land but then there were potential losses to bad weather and pirates to consider. Consequently, local markets were supplied by the farmed estates that surrounded them and those who wanted non-everyday items like clothing, cloth, or wine had to be prepared to walk half a day or more to the nearest town.

Tradespeople usually lived above their shop which presented a large window onto the street with a stall projecting out from under a wooden canopy.

In towns, the consumer had, besides markets, the additional option of shops. Tradespeople usually lived above their shop which presented a large window onto the street with a stall projecting out from under a wooden canopy. In cities, shops selling the same type of goods were often clustered together in the same neighbourhoods, again to increase competition and make the life of city and guild inspectors easier. Sometimes location was directly related to the goods on sale such as horse sellers typically being near the city gates so as to tempt the passing traveller or booksellers near a cathedral and its associated schools of learning. Those trades which involved goods whose quality was absolutely vital such as goldsmiths and armourers were usually located near a town council's administration buildings where they could be kept a close eye on by regulators. Towns also had banks and money-lenders, many of which were Jews as usury was forbidden to Christians by the Church. As a consequence of this clustering of trades, many streets acquired a name which described the trade most represented in them, names which in many cases still survive today.

Trade Fairs

Trade fairs were large-scale sales events typically held annually in large towns where people could find a greater range of goods than they might find in their more local market and traders could buy goods wholesale. Prices also tended to be cheaper because there was more competition between sellers of specific items. Fairs boomed in France, England, Flanders, and Germany in the 12th and 13th centuries CE, with one of the most famous areas for them being the Champagne region of France.

The fairs which were held in June and October in Troyes, May and September in Saint Ayoul, at Lent in Bar-sur-Aube, and in January at Lagny were encouraged by the Counts of Champagne who also provided policing services and paid the salaries of the army of officials who supervised the fairs. Traders of wool, cloth, spices, wine, and all manner of other goods gathered from across France and even came from abroad, notably from Flanders, Spain, England, and Italy. Some of these fairs lasted up to 49 days and brought in a healthy revenue to the Counts; such was their importance, French kings even guaranteed to protect merchants travelling to and from the fairs. Not only did the fairs of Champagne become famed across Europe but they were a great boost to the international reputation of Champagne wine (at that time still not the sparkling drink that Dom Pérignon would pioneer in the 17th century CE).

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

For many ordinary people, fairs anywhere were a great highlight of the year. People usually had to travel more than a day to reach their nearest fair and so they would stay one or two days in the many taverns and inns which developed around them. There were public entertainments such as the dancing girls of Champagne and all kinds of performing street artists as well as a few more unsavoury aspects such as gambling and prostitution that gave the fairs a poor reputation with the Church. By the 15th century CE trade fairs had gone into decline as the possibilities for people to buy goods everywhere and at any time had greatly increased.

The Expansion of International Trade

Trade in Europe in the early Middle Ages continued to some degree as it had under the Romans, with shipping being fundamental to the movement of goods from one end of the Mediterranean to the other and via rivers and waterways from south to north and vice versa. However, the extent of international trade in this early period is disputed among historians. There was a movement of goods, especially luxury goods (precious metals, horses, and slaves to name a few), but in what quantities and whether transactions involved money, barter, or gift-exchange is unclear. Jewish and Syrian merchants may have filled the gap left by the demise of the Romans up to the 7th century CE while the Levant also traded with North Africa and the Moors in Spain. It is probable that international trade still remained the affair of only the elite aristocracy and it supported economies rather than drove them.

Into the 9th century CE, a clearer picture of international trade begins to emerge. The Italian city-states, under the nominal rulership of the Byzantine Empire, began to take over the trade networks of the Mediterranean, particularly Venice and Amalfi who would later be joined by Pisa and Genoa and suitable ports in southern Italy. Goods traded between the Arab world and Europe included slaves, spices, perfumes, gold, jewels, leather goods, animal skins, and luxury textiles, especially silk. Italian cities specialised in the exports of cloths like linen, unspun cotton, and salt (goods which originally came from Spain, Germany, northern Italy, and the Adriatic). There developed important inland trading centres like Milan which then passed on goods to the coastal cities for further export or more northern cities. The trade connections across the Mediterranean are evidenced in descriptions of European ports in the works of Arab geographers and the high numbers of Arab gold coinage found in, for example, parts of southern Italy.

In the 10th and 11th centuries CE, Northern Europe also exported internationally, the Vikings amassing large numbers of slaves from their raids and then selling them on. Silver was exported from the mines in Saxony, grain from England was exported to Norway, and Scandinavian timber and fish were imported in the other direction. After the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066 CE, England switched trade to France and the Low countries, importing cloth and wine and exporting cereals and wool from which Flemish weavers produced textiles.

International Business was now booming as many city-ports established international trading posts where foreign merchants were allowed to live.

As the Italian trio of Venice, Pisa, and Genoa gained more and more wealth, so they spread their trading tentacles further, establishing trading posts in North Africa, also gaining trade monopolies in parts of the Byzantine Empire and, in return for providing transport, men and fighting ships for the Crusaders, a permanent presence in cities conquered by Christian armies in the Levant from the 12th century CE. In the same century, the Northern Crusades provided southern Europe with yet more slaves. Also travelling south were such precious metals as iron, copper, and tin. The 13th century CE witnessed more long-distance trade in less valuable, everyday goods as traders benefitted from better roads, canals, and especially more technologically advanced ships; factors which combined to cut down transportation time, increase capacity, reduce losses and make costs more attractive. In addition, when the goods arrived at their point of sale, more people now had surplus wealth thanks to a growing urban population who worked in manufacturing or were traders themselves.

Trading Ports & Regulation

International business was now booming as many city-ports established international trading posts where foreign merchants were allowed to live temporarily and trade their goods. In the early 13th century CE Genoa, for example, had 198 resident merchants of which 95 were Flemish and 51 French. There were German traders on the famous (and still standing) Rialto bridge of Venice, in the Steelyard area of London, and the Tyske brygge quarter of Bergen in Norway. Traders from Marseille and Barcelona permanently camped in the ports of North Africa. Economic migration reached such numbers that these ports developed their own consulates to protect the rights of their nationals and shops and services sprang up to meet their particular tastes in food, clothing, and religion.

With this growth, trade relations became more complex between states and rulers, with middlemen and agents added to the mix. Trading expeditions were financed by rich investors who, if they put up all the initial capital, often got 75% of the profits, the rest going to the merchants who amassed the goods and then shipped them to wherever they were in demand. This arrangement, used for example by the Genoese, was called a commenda. An alternative setup, the societas maris, was for the investor to provide two-thirds of the capital and the merchant the rest. The profits would then be split 50-50. Behind these major investors, there developed consortiums of smaller investors who put up their money for a future return but who could not afford to pay for a whole expedition. Thus, there developed sophisticated mechanisms of borrowing and lending, which involved a very large number of families in the Italian cities, in particular. There were more and more financial instruments to tempt investors and extend credit such as credit notes, bills of exchange, maritime insurance, and shares in companies.

Trade was now assuming the guise we would recognise today with well-established businesses run by generations of merchants from the same family (for example, the Medici of Florence). There were increased efforts at standardisation in product quality and helpful treatises on how to compare weights, measurements, and coins across different cultures. State control increased with a codification of customary trade laws and regulations and, so too, the now all-too-familiar imposition of taxes, duties, and protectionist quotas. Finally, there was, as well, advice on how to best get around these regulations, as mentioned in this extract on Constantinople's trade officials, taken from the 14th-century CE Florentine trader Francesco Balducci Pegolotti's guide to world trade, La Practica della Mercatura:

Remember well that if you show respect to customs officials, their clerks and 'turkmen' [sergeants], and slip them a little something or some money, they will also behave very courteously and will tax the goods that you later bring by them lower than their real value. (Blockmans, 244)

By the mid-14th century CE, the Italian city-states were even trading with as distant partners as the Mongols, although this increase in global contact brought unwanted side effects such as the Black Death (peaked 1347-52 CE) that entered Europe via the rats which infested Italian trading ships. Undeterred, European pioneers - both religious and commercial - would head off into the other direction, and so the Cape Verde Islands were discovered by the Portuguese in 1462 CE and three decades later Christopher Columbus would open up the way to the New World. Next, in 1497 CE, Vasco da Gama boldly sailed around the Cape of Good Hope to reach India so that by the end of the Middle Ages, the world was suddenly a much more connected place, one which would bring riches for a few and despair for many.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trade and commerce in the medieval world developed to such an extent that even relatively small communities had access to weekly markets and, perhaps a day's travel away, larger but less frequent fairs, where the full range of consumer goods of the period was set out to tempt the shopper and small retailer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the lives of different groups of the population during the Middle Ages

Key Points

During the High Middle Ages, the population of Europe grew from 35 to 80 million between 1000 and 1347, probably due to improved agricultural techniques and a more mild climate.

90% of the European population remained rural peasants gathered into small communities of manors or villages.

Towns grew up around castles and were often fortified by walls in response to disorder and raids.

Daily life for peasants consisted of working the land. Life was harsh, with a limited diet and little comfort.

Women were subordinate to men, in both the peasant and noble classes, and were expected to ensure the smooth running of the household.

Children had a 50% survival rate beyond age one, and began to contribute to family life around age twelve.

Terms

agrarian

Based around producing and maintaining crops and farmland.

sickle

Hand-held agricultural tool with a variously curved blade typically used for harvesting grain crops or cutting succulent forage (either freshly cut or dried as hay) used chiefly to feed livestock.

kinsman

A male relative.

husbandry

Farming or agriculture.

The High Middle Ages was a period of tremendous expansion of population. The estimated population of Europe grew from 35 to 80 million between 1000 and 1347, but the exact causes remain unclear; improved agricultural techniques, the decline of slaveholding, a warmer climate, and the lack of invasion have all been suggested. As much as 90% of the European population remained rural peasants. Many were no longer settled in isolated farms but had gathered into small communities, usually known as manors or villages. These peasants were often subject to noble overlords and owed them rents and other services, in a system known as manorialism. There remained a few free peasants throughout this period and beyond, with more of them in the regions of southern Europe than in the north. The practice of assarting, or bringing new lands into production by offering incentives to the peasants who settled them, also contributed to the expansion of population.

Castles began to be constructed in the 9th and 10th centuries in response to the disorder of the time, and provided protection from invaders and rival lords. They were initially built of wood, then of stone. Once castles were built, towns built up around them.

A major factor in the development of towns included Viking invasions during the early Middle Ages, which led to villages erecting walls and fortifying their positions. Following this, great medieval walled cities were constructed with homes, shops, and churches contained within the walls. York, England, which prospered during much of the later medieval era, is famed for its medieval walls and bars (gates), and has the most extensive medieval city walls remaining in England today.

The practice of sending children away to act as servants was more common in towns than in the countryside. The inhabitants of towns largely made their livelihoods as merchants or artisans, and this activity was strictly controlled by guilds. The members of these guilds would employ young people-primarily boys-as apprentices, to learn the craft and later take position as guild members themselves. These apprentices made up part of the household, or "family," as much as the children of the master.

Medieval villages consisted mostly of peasant farmers, with the structure comprised of houses, barns, sheds, and animal pens clustered around the center of the village. Beyond this, the village was surrounded by plowed fields and pastures.

For peasants, daily medieval life revolved around an agrarian calendar, with the majority of time spent working the land and trying to grow enough food to survive another year. Church feasts marked sowing and reaping days and occasions when peasant and lord could rest from their labors.

Peasants that lived on a manor by the castle were assigned strips of land to plant and harvest. They typically planted rye, oats, peas, and barley, and harvested crops with a scythe, sickle, or reaper. Each peasant family had its own strips of land; however, the peasants worked cooperatively on tasks such as plowing and haying. They were also expected to build roads, clear forests, and work on other tasks as determined by the lord.

The houses of medieval peasants were of poor quality compared to modern houses. The floor was normally earthen, and there was very little ventilation and few sources of light in the form of windows. In addition to the human inhabitants, a number of livestock animals would also reside in the house. Towards the end of the medieval period, however, conditions generally improved. Peasant houses became larger in size, and it became more common to have two rooms, and even a second floor.

Comfort was not always found even in the rich houses. Heating was always a problem with stone floors, ceilings, and walls. Not much light came in from small windows, and oil- and fat-based candles often produced a pungent aroma. Furniture consisted of wooden benches, long tables, cupboards, and pantries. Linen, when affordable, could be glued or nailed to benches to provide some comfort. Beds, though made of the softest materials, were often full of bedbugs, lice, and other biting insects.

Peasants usually ate warm porridges made of wheat, oats, and barley. Broths, stews, vegetables, and bread were also part of a peasant's diet. Peasants rarely ate meat, and when they did, it was their own animals that were saved for the winter. Peasants drank wine and ale, never water.

Even though peasant households were significantly smaller than aristocratic ones, the wealthiest peasants would also employ servants. Service was a natural part of the cycle of life, and it was common for young people to spend some years away from home in the service of another household. This way they would learn the skills needed later in life, and at the same time earn a wage. This was particularly useful for girls, who could put the earnings towards their dowries.

Nobles, both the titled nobility and simple knights, exploited the manors and the peasants, although they did not own land outright but were granted rights to the income from a manor or other lands by an overlord through the system of feudalism. During the 11th and 12th centuries, these lands, or fiefs, came to be considered hereditary, and in most areas they were no longer divisible between all the heirs as had been the case in the early medieval period. Instead, most fiefs and lands went to the eldest son. The dominance of the nobility was built upon its control of the land, its military service as heavy cavalry, its control of castles, and various immunities from taxes or other impositions.

Nobles were stratified; kings and the highest-ranking nobility controlled large numbers of commoners and large tracts of land, as well as other nobles. Beneath them, lesser nobles had authority over smaller areas of land and fewer people. Knights were the lowest level of nobility; they controlled but did not own land, and had to serve other nobles.

The court of a monarch, or at some periods an important nobleman, was the extended household and all those who regularly attended on the ruler or central figure. These courtiers included the monarch or noble's camarilla and retinue, the household, nobility, those with court appointments, and bodyguards, and may also have included emissaries from other kingdoms or visitors to the court. Foreign princes and foreign nobility in exile could also seek refuge at a court.

Etiquette and hierarchy flourished in highly structured court settings. Most courts featured a strict order of precedence, often involving royal and noble ranks, orders of chivalry, and nobility. Some courts even featured court uniforms. One of the major markers of a court was ceremony. Most monarchal courts included ceremonies concerning the investiture or coronation of the monarch and audiences with the monarch. Some courts had ceremonies around the waking and the sleeping of the monarch, called a levée.

Court officials or office-bearers (one type of courtier) derived their positions and retained their titles from their original duties within the courtly household. With time, such duties often became archaic. However, titles survived involving the ghosts of arcane duties. These styles generally dated back to the days when a noble household had practical and mundane concerns as well as high politics and culture. These positions include butler, confessor, falconer, royal fool, gentleman usher, master of the hunt, page, and secretary. Elaborate noble households included many roles and responsibilities, held by these various courtiers, and these tasks characterized their daily lives.

Daily life of nobility also included playing games, including chess, which echoed the hierarchy of the nobles, and playing music, such as the music of the troubadours and trouvères. This involved a vernacular tradition of monophonic secular song, probably accompanied by instruments, sung by professional, occasionally itinerant, musicians who were skilled poets as well as singers and instrumentalists.

Women in the Middle Ages were officially required to be subordinate to some male, whether their father, husband, or other kinsman. Widows, who were often allowed some control over their own lives, were still restricted legally. Three main activities performed by peasant men and women were planting food, keeping livestock, and making textiles, as depicted in Psalters from southern Germany and England. Women of different classes performed different activities. Rich urban women could be merchants like their husbands or even became money lenders, and middle-class women worked in the textile, inn-keeping, shop-keeping, and brewing industries. Townswomen, like peasant women, were responsible for the household and could also engage in trade. Poorer women often peddled and huckstered food and other merchandise in the market places or worked in richer households as domestic servants, day laborers, or laundresses.

There is evidence that women performed not only housekeeping responsibilities like cooking and cleaning, but even other household activities like grinding, brewing, butchering, and spinning produced items like flour, ale, meat, cheese, and textiles for direct consumption and for sale. An anonymous 15th-century English ballad described activities performed by English peasant women, like housekeeping, making foodstuffs and textiles, and childcare.

Noblewomen were responsible for running a household and could occasionally be expected to handle estates in the absence of male relatives, but they were usually restricted from participation in military or government affairs. The only role open to women in the church was that of a nun, as they were unable to become priests.

For most children growing up in medieval England, the first year of life was one of the most dangerous, with as many as 50% of children succumbing to fatal illness during that year. Moreover, 20% of women died in childbirth. During the first year of life children were cared for and nursed, either by parents if the family belonged to the peasant class, or perhaps by a wet nurse if the family belonged to a noble class.

By age twelve, a child began to take on a more serious role in family duties. Although according to canon law girls could marry at the age of twelve, this was relatively uncommon unless a child was an heiress or belonged to a family of noble birth. Peasant children at this age stayed at home and continued to learn and develop domestic skills and husbandry. Urban children moved out of their homes and into the homes of their employer or master (depending on their future roles as servants or apprentices). Noble boys learned skills in arms, and noble girls learned basic domestic skills. The end of childhood and entrance into adolescence was marked by leaving home and moving to the house of the employer or master, entering a university, or entering church service.

Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Compare and contrast the lives of different groups of the population during the Middle Ages During the High Middle Ages, the population of Europe grew from 35 to 80 million between 1000 and 1347, probably due to improved agricultural techniques and a more mild climate.

# data[].attributes.body
Includes primary sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation: C N Trueman "The Lifestyle of Medieval Peasants"
historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, . .

The lifestyle of a medieval peasant in Medieval England was extremely hard and harsh. Many worked as farmers in fields owned by the lords and their lives were controlled by the farming year. Certain jobs had to be done at certain times of the year. Their lives were harsh but there were few rebellions due to a harsh system of law and order.

Ploughing - a vital farm job

The peasants were at the bottom of the Feudal System and had to obey their local lord to whom they had sworn an oath of obedience on the Bible. Because they had sworn an oath to their lord, it was taken for granted that they had sworn a similar oath to the duke, earl or baron who owned that lord's property.

The position of the peasant was made clear by Jean Froissart when he wrote:

'It is the custom in England, as with other countries, for the nobility to have great power over the common people, who are serfs. This means that they are bound by law and custom to plough the field of their masters, harvest the corn, gather it into barns, and thresh and winnow the grain; they must also mow and carry home the hay, cut and collect wood, and perform all manner of tasks of this kind.'
- written 1395

Paying taxes

The one thing the peasant had to do in Medieval England was to pay out money in taxes or rent. He had to pay rent for his land to his lord; he had to pay a tax to the church called a tithe. This was a tax on all of the farm produce he had produced in that year. A tithe was 10% of the value of what he had farmed. This may not seem a lot but it could make or break a peasant's family. A peasant could pay in cash or in kind - seeds, equipment etc. Either way, tithes were a deeply unpopular tax. The church collected so much produce from this tax, that it had to be stored in huge tithe barns. Some of these barns can still be seen today. There is a very large one in Maidstone, Kent, which now has a collection of carriages in it.

Peasants also had to work for free on church land. This was highly inconvenient as this time could have been used by the peasant to work on their own land. However, the power of the church was such that no-one dared break this rule as they had been taught from a very early age that God would see their sins and punish them.

The Domesday Book meant that the king knew how much tax you owed and you could not argue with this - hence why it brought 'doom and gloom' to people.

After you had paid your taxes, you could keep what was left - which would not be a great deal. If you had to give away seeds for the next growing season, this could be especially hard as you might end up with not having enough to grow let alone to feed yourself.

Peasant housing

Peasants lived in cruck houses. These had a wooden frame onto which was plastered wattle and daub. This was a mixture of mud, straw and manure. The straw added insulation to the wall while the manure was considered good for binding the whole mixture together and giving it strength. The mixture was left to dry in the sun and formed what was a strong building material.

What a cruck house may have looked like - minus the wattle and daub

Cruck houses were not big but repairs were quite cheap and easy to do. The roofs were thatched. There would be little furniture within the cruck houses and straw would be used for lining the floor. The houses are likely to have been very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter. Windows were just holes in the walls as glass was very expensive. Doors might be covered with a curtain rather than having a door as good wood could be expensive

At night, any animal you owned would be brought inside for safety. There were a number of reasons for this.

First, wild animals roamed the countryside. England still had wolves and bears in the forests and these could easily have taken a pig, cow or chickens. The loss of any animal could be a disaster but the loss of valuable animals such as an ox would be a calamity.

If left outside at night they could also have been stolen or simply have wandered off. If they were inside your house, none of these would happen and they were safe. However, they must have made the house even more dirty than it usually would have been as none of these animals would have been house-trained. They would have also brought in fleas and flies etc. increasing the unhygienic nature of the house.

The houses would have had none of the things we accept as normal today - no running water, no toilets, no baths and washing basins. Soap was unheard of and as was shampoo. People would have been covered with dirt, fleas and lice. Beds were simply straw stuffed mattresses and these would have attracted lice, fleas and all types of bugs. Your toilet would have been a bucket which would have been emptied into the nearest river at the start of the day.

Water had a number of purposes for peasants - cooking, washing etc. Unfortunately, the water usually came from the same source. A local river, stream or well provided a village with water but this water source was also used as a way of getting rid of your waste at the start of the day. It was usually the job of a wife to collect water first thing in the morning. Water was collected in wooden buckets. Villages that had access to a well could simply wind up their water from the well itself.

Towns needed a larger water supply. Water could be brought into a town using a series of ditches; lead pipes could also be used. Water in a town would come out of conduit which was similar to a modern day fountain.

Peasant hygiene

Bathing was a rarity even for the rich. A rich person might have a bath just several times a year but to make life easier, several people might use the water before it was got rid of!

It was said that a peasant could expect to be fully bathed just twice in their life; once, when they were born and when they had died! Face and hand washing was more common but knowledge of hygiene was non-existent. No-one knew that germs could be spread by dirty hands.

London had a number of public baths near the River Thames. These were called "stews". Several people at one time would bath in them. However, as people had to take off what clothes they wore, the stews also attracted thieves who would steal what they could when the victims were hardly in a position to run after them!

Regardless of how water was acquired, there was a very real potential that it could be contaminated as toilet waste was continuously thrown into rivers which would make its way into a water source somewhere.

Families would have cooked and slept in the same room. Children would have slept in a loft if the cruck house was big enough.

Peasant children

The lives of peasant children would have been very different to today. They would not have attended school for a start. Very many would have died before they were six months old as disease would have been very common. As soon as was possible, children joined their parents working on the land. They could not do any major physical work but they could clear stones off the land - which might damage farming tools - and they could be used to chase birds away during the time when seeds were sown. Peasant children could only look forward to a life of great hardship.

For all peasants, life was "nasty, brutish and short."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Lifestyle of Medieval Peasants - History Learning Site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Citation: C N Trueman "The Lifestyle of Medieval Peasants"historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, . . The lifestyle of a medieval peasant in Medieval England was extremely hard and harsh. Many worked as farmers in fields owned by the lords and their lives were controlled by the farming year.

# data[].attributes.body
This includes primary sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the feudal system during the Middle Ages and Medieval times. Feudalism with lords and manors, serfs and peasants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Medieval Weapons Shaped Warfare for Centuries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technological advancement and military strategy changes go hand-in-hand. Discover how eight key weapons of the medieval era shaped military conflicts of the time.

# data[].attributes.body
This includes some primary sources- see 2.53

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the period between 1000 and 1300, an era often termed the 'Central' or 'High' Middle Ages, warfare was one of the defining features of society in Western Europe. The prevalence of martial conflict was a fact of which observers at the time were aware. From around 1000, contemporaries began to formulate a view of society which divided its members into three groups, according to the functions that they performed in society. These three groups - or 'Orders', as they were known - consisted of: those who worked, those who prayed, and those who fought. It was the last of these - the warriors - who attracted much attention from contemporary chroniclers and historians.

To understand how Western Europeans conducted warfare in the Central Middle Ages, it is important to have a sense of some of the key features of politics and culture in this period. The most essential fact to bear in mind is that the key to Western European society in the Central Middle Ages was land, or, more specifically, the ownership of land. As a result, the interests of landowners often shaped warfare; military activity was invariably conducted by the ruling elite in order to protect their own land, or with the aim to capture new territory from a rival. While there was a degree of development in the technology of weapons and armour over the period, there was no great transformative revolution; throughout these centuries, warfare remained largely dictated by the length that an archer could shoot an arrow, and by the strength of the arms that wielded swords and spears.
The historical context
The period 1000 to 1300 is worth considering in its own right, separately from the era that went before and that which come after. The beginning of the Central Middle Ages witnessed a significant change in the course of Western European history, and the overall character of the wars that its inhabitants generally fought. In the centuries down to about 1100, Western Europeans fought significant defensive wars against Vikings from Scandinavia, against Magyars from Eastern Europe (the area that is now Hungary), and against Muslim forces which exerted pressure northwards from the Mediterranean. Around 1100, the danger of external attacks diminished, and Western Europe went on the offensive. In the centuries that followed, bands of acquisitive armsbearers such as Normans, famous then as now for their aggressive character and lust for adventure, captured a range of territories in different parts of Europe and beyond. Most famously, an army of Normans captured England in 1066, before they and their successors turned their attention to the surrounding lands of Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the years and decades that followed. Major conquests by potentates from Germany conquered the territories east of the River Elbe (territory in what is today Poland and the lands surrounding the Baltic Sea). Many armsbearers flocked to Iberia to take part in the wars aimed at taking the peninsula from the Muslim powers who had conquered it in the eighth century. In the Central Middle Ages, Western European armsbearers also waged war under the banner of the cross, in expeditions known as the crusades. These campaigns, called for and supported by the Church, and targeted against groups held up as the enemies of Christendom, were conducted to various theatres within Europe as well as to northern Africa and, perhaps most significantly, the Near East (the location of the Holy City of Jerusalem). A number of factors which shaped Western European history after 1300, including profound economic changes, the repercussions of the Black Death, and, perhaps most significantly, the invention of gunpowder, meant that from the fourteenth century, warfare began to take on a distinct and new character.
The legacy of medieval warfare
The physical remains of the warfare fought during the Middle Ages are still evident today, perhaps most obviously in the form of mighty castles. Many of these structures still dominate the landscape of various regions of Western Europe, standing as monuments to the centrality of warfare in the medieval age. In some regions, such as Wales - which by the middle of the thirteenth century was perhaps the most heavily militarised region of Europe - this built evidence is more apparent than elsewhere. Yet, it is easy to overlook the fact that the consequences of medieval warfare on the course of European history and development can be seen today in other ways. To a significant degree, the military activity of the Middle Ages played a significant role in shaping the cultural, linguistic and political boundaries of modern Europe. France represents a good example which can illustrate this point. At the start of our period, the authority of the king of France extended not much further than Paris and its immediate surroundings. By the end of this period, the French monarchy had, through conquests, political manoeuvring and alliances, extended its interests far beyond that to attain at least theoretical authority over a space that looks not unlike the country we can see on maps today. While we should be wary of accepting simple models of continuity, it is not misleading to suggest that the foundations of modern France were laid by the wars of the French kings during the Middle Ages.
Raising forces
In the period between 1000 and 1300, armies were raised by several means. Chiefly, troops were recruited as one dynamic the system of land-holding that dominated much of Europe. A lord (and this included kings) would dole out parcels of land to his followers, in the expectation that they would provide military service when called upon to do so. Mercenaries - men who fought in return for pay rather than through any obligation owed to their commander - became more prominent over the course of the period. One central problem that confronts modern historians of medieval warfare is that contemporary chroniclers generally provide unreliable figures for the numbers of troops who took part in a given action. It is not uncommon for chroniclers to assert that armies consisted of forces that numbered in the millions, far beyond the realms of what rulers could realistically put into the field. The best solution for dealing with this is often to accept these figures as conveying an order of magnitude. Hence, an army of 'six million' might be interpreted as meaning 'a very large army indeed'.

The troops raised by commanders in this period consisted of infantry, missilemen (archers and crossbowmen) and the mounted, armoured warriors known to history as 'knights'. The image of the knight has in many ways come symbolically to represent the Middle Ages as a whole. They are as familiar to us as they were to medieval observers, depicted as they are in the Bayeux Tapestry, and in the carved statues installed on Chartres Cathedral and other churches around Europe in this period. In 1100 a 'knight' was simply a warrior who fought on horseback who had no particular standing, but over the course of the twelfth century, knights gradually came to acquire an enhanced social status. By the end of the thirteenth century, the knighthood and nobility of Western Europe had essentially fused; after this point, to be a knight, one needed to be a noble (and vice versa). A principal catalyst for the fusion of the nobility and the knighthood was the emergence of the warrior ethos known as chivalry. Chivalry was a constantly changing and evolving phenomenon. It meant different things to different people at different times. Most significantly, 'chivalry' has been understood in different ways by successive generations since 1300, and we must be wary of imposing later understandings of chivalry back onto the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In brief, around 1200, chivalry consisted of set of principles which set out the ideal conduct of a knight on the battlefield, and how the knight was expected to treat those enemies whom he had defeated. Some of the most famous works to survive from the Middle Ages (such as the Chanson de Roland ('Song of Roland'), whose earliest form dates to about 1100), are devoted to exploring the issues that could arise as knights sought to uphold the ideals of chivalry.
Battles
Major pitched battles - like that fought near Hastings on 14 October 1066 - dominate perceptions of the period. Yet, in fact, major battles were the exception rather than the norm in this period. Warfare was an expensive endeavour, and many lords did not wish to gamble everything on one encounter, whose outcome was very often difficult if not impossible fully to control. This is not, however, to suggest that substantial military activity did not take place in the Central Middle Ages; it certainly did. That activity, though, more often than not took place on the level of raids and skirmishes. Commanders would generally target an enemy's lands, terrorising or capturing the people who lived on it and destroying crops, livestock and buildings. Yet, even if battle itself was rare, the prospect of fighting a major battle remained a decisive feature in how warfare was conducted. This was because every commander had to at least contemplate giving battle if the situation demanded it. If they did not, then all other military activity was bluff. Moreover, it is the case that in some instances, commanders did actively seek battle, no doubt because battles offered the prospect of a quick and decisive outcome, which raid and sieges did not. William the Conqueror certainly sought battle in 1066, and provoked King Harold into taking the bait and committing to a major set piece encounter. Behind this is another important point; for a battle to take place in this era, most of the time both sides needed to be willing to fight. A commander who did not wish to give battle could generally avoid doing so, until it was necessary or desirable.

Much attention - both medieval and modern - has centred upon the role of the mounted warrior -the knight - in battle. A number of contemporary sources draw attention to the the impact that a group if knights, charging in a line in unison with their lances fixed ahead, could have on enemy lines. Descriptions of this manoeuvre, known by the French word chevauchée, dominate many accounts of battles fought in this era. But we should be wary of taking those sources at face value; many chroniclers wrote with an audience of knightly nobles in mind, and so we can perhaps expect them to place a particular emphasis on the importance of knights in battle, rather than on, say, the more mundane actions carried out by infantry and archers.
Castles and sieges
Throughout history, armies have constructed fortified places as a normal part of warfare, and this was certainly the case in the Central Middle Ages. The ruling elite who owned land generally travelled around their various estates, in order to consume the foodstuffs produced by each parcel of land belonging to them. In order to do this, they needed comfortable accommodation, which could withstand a reasonable level of enemy attack. They needed, in other words, castles. At their most essential function, castles were the residences of the ruling elite. They also acted as centres for administration and rulership. In other words, castles were one of the instruments of power wielded by the ruling elite. While castles were often primarily defensive - oftentimes they acted simply as a refuge into which a commander could lead his troops to evade raids conducted by an enemy - they also could serve to menace and threaten opponents.

At the very outset of our period, many castles in Western Europe were wooden structures (one might think here in terms of the Motte and Bailey structure). But the eleventh and especially the twelfth centuries witnessed a significant upsurge in the construction of new fortifications made out of stone. From the early eleventh century, contemporaries report the spread of fortifications, and some historians have linked this to wider political processes which served to diminish the central power of kings. The earliest stone structures were simple; they often were little more than box-shaped towers, known as donjons. Examples of this type of building are provide the White Tower, the kernel of the Tower of London (on which construction began in the reign of William the Conqueror), and fortifications at Colchester (Essex) and at Rouen (in Normandy). Over time, the designs of stone castles became more and more complex. We see the emergence of what historians call concentric castles. In simple terms, these were castles built like Russian dolls; they had two lines of walls, with the inner wall being defensible against the outer line fell to the enemy. Richard I of England was immensely proud of his Château Gaillard (which we might translate from the French into English as 'saucy castle), a concentric castle he had built at the end of the twelfth century on the border between his duchy of Normandy and the lands of the king of France. In some respects, the zenith of castle building can be seen in the structures erected in Wales at the behest of Edward I after his conquest of 1282-3. The vast castle at Beaumaris, on the isle of Anglesey, is one of the most well-known realisations of the concentric approach to castle building.

These developments in castle-building were accompanied by linked developments in the art of siege warfare. There was something of an arms race, as siege craft evolved to keep up with the ever more imperious castles being constructed around Europe. Sieges far outnumbered all other types of warfare in this period, including pitched battles. They can be boiled down to a very simple dynamic. For besieging armies, the aim was to starve the enemy of all the resources they had stored in their castle. On the other hand, the aim of forces contained within a besieged castle was to hold out, either until the besieging army used up all its resources, or a friendly army came to attack the enemy forces set up around the castle. The best-constructed and supplied castles could hold out for many months against a besieging force. A number of different siege engines could be employed, including throwing machines (mangonels, catapults and trebuchets) as well as devices intended to provide shelter to attacking troops as they closed on the city walls. During the siege of Jerusalem in July 1099, the armies of the First Crusade constructed siege towers three storeys high, which they placed on wheels so that they could be rolled up to the city walls and protect the warriors stationed within.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Warfare in Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the period between 1000 and 1300, an era often termed the 'Central' or 'High' Middle Ages, warfare was one of the defining features of society in Western Europe. The prevalence of martial conflict was a fact of which observers at the time were aware.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Made The Black Death (The Plague) so Deadly?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Black Death- cause, spread and consequences

# data[].attributes.subject
The Black Death- cause, spread and consequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Black Death was a plague pandemic that devastated medieval Europe from 1347 to 1352. The Black Death killed an estimated 25-30 million people. The disease originated in central Asia and was taken to the Crimea by Mongol warriors and traders. The plague then entered Europe via Italy, perhaps carried by rats or human parasites via Genoese trading ships sailing from the Black Sea.

The disease was caused by a bacillus bacteria, Yersinia pestis, and carried by fleas on rodents, although recent studies suggest human parasites like lice may well have been the carriers. It was known as the Black Death because it could turn the skin and sores black while other symptoms included fever and joint pains. With up to two-thirds of sufferers dying from the disease, it is estimated that between 30% and 50% of the population of those places affected died from the Black Death. The death toll was so high that it had significant consequences on European medieval society as a whole, with a shortage of farmers resulting in demands for an end to serfdom, a general questioning of authority and rebellions, and the entire abandonment of many towns and villages. The worst plague in human history, it would take 200 years for the population of Europe to recover to the level seen prior to the Black Death.

What Were the Causes of the Plague?

The plague is an infectious disease caused by a bacillus bacteria which is carried and spread by parasitic fleas on rodents, notably the brown rat. Other parasites, including those living on human skin, may also have spread the disease. There are three types of plague, and all three were likely present in the Black Death pandemic: Bubonic plague, Pneumonic plague and Septicemic plague. Bubonic plague was the most common during the 14th-century outbreak, causing severe swelling in the groin and armpits (the lymph nodes) which take on a sickening black colour, hence the name the Black Death. The black sores which can cover the body in general, caused by internal haemorrhages, were known as buboes, from which bubonic plague takes its name. Other symptoms are raging fever and joint pains. If untreated, bubonic plague is fatal in between 30 and 75% of infections, often within 72 hours. The other two types of plague - pneumonic (or pulmonary) and septicaemic - are usually fatal in all cases.

What Were the Symptoms of the Plague?

The terrible symptoms of the disease were described by writers of the time, notably by the Italian writer Boccaccio in the preface to his 1358 Decameron. One writer, the Welsh poet Ieuan Gethin made perhaps the best attempt at describing the black sores which he saw first-hand in 1349:

We see death coming into our midst like black smoke, a plague which cuts off the young, a rootless phantom which has no mercy for fair countenance. Woe is me of the shilling of the armpit...It is of the form of an apple, like the head of an onion, a small boil that spares no-one. Great is its seething, like a burning cinder, a grievous thing of ashy colour...They are similar to the seeds of the black peas, broken fragments of brittle sea-coal...cinders of the peelings of the cockle weed, a mixed multitude, a black plague like half pence, like berries...(Davies, 411).

How Did the Black Death Spread?

The 14th century in Europe had already proven to be something of a disaster even before the Black Death arrived. An earlier plague had hit livestock, and there had been crop failures from overexploitation of the land, which led to two major Europe-wide famines in 1316 and 1317. There was, too, the turbulence of wars, especially the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) between England and France. Even the weather was getting worse as the unusually temperate cycle of 1000-1300 now gave way to the beginnings of a "little ice age " where winters were steadily colder and longer, reducing the growing season and, consequently, the harvest.

A devastating plague affecting humans was not a new phenomenon, with a serious outbreak having occurred in the mid-5th century which ravaged the Mediterranean area and Constantinople, in particular. The Black Death of 1347 entered Europe, probably via Sicily, when it was carried there by four Genoese grain ships sailing from Caffa, on the Black Sea. The port city had been under siege by Tartar-Mongols who had catapulted infected corpses into the city, and it was there the Italians had picked up the plague. Another origin was Mongol traders using the Silk Road who had brought the disease from its source in central Asia, with China specifically being identified following genetic studies in 2011 (although South East Asia has been proposed as an alternative source and actual historical evidence of an epidemic caused by plague in China during the 14th century is weak). From Sicily, it was but a short step to the Italian mainland, although one of the ships from Caffa had reached Genoa, been refused entry, and docked in Marseilles, and then Valencia. Thus, by the end of 1349, the disease had been carried along trade routes into Western Europe: France, Spain, Britain, and Ireland, which all witnessed its awful effects. Spreading like wildfire, there were plague outbreaks in Germany, Scandinavia, the Baltic states, and Russia through 1350-1352.

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

Although it spread unchecked, the Black Death hit some areas much more severely than others.

Medieval doctors had no idea about such microscopic organisms as bacteria, and so they were helpless in terms of treatment, and where they might have had the best chance of helping people, in prevention, they were hampered by the level of sanitation which was appalling compared to modern standards. Another helpful strategy would have been to quarantine areas but, as people fled in panic whenever a case of plague broke out, they unknowingly carried the disease with them and spread it even further afield.

There were so many plague victims and so many bodies that the authorities did not know what to do with them, and carts piled high with corpses became a common sight across Europe. It seemed the only course of action was to stay put, avoid people, and pray. The disease finally ran its course by 1352 but would recur again, in less severe outbreaks, throughout the rest of the medieval period.

How Many People Died of the Black Death?

Although it spread unchecked, the Black Death hit some areas much more severely than others. This fact and the often exaggerated death tolls of medieval (and some modern) writers means that is extremely difficult to accurately assess the total death toll. Sometimes entire cities, for example, Milan, managed to avoid significant effects, while others, such as Florence, were devastated - the Italian city losing 50,000 of its 85,000 population (Boccaccio claimed the impossible figure of 100,000). Paris was said to have buried 800 dead each day at its peak, but other places somehow missed the carnage. On average 30% of the population of affected areas was killed, although some historians prefer a figure closer to 50%, and this was probably the case in the worst affected cities. Figures for the death toll thus range from 25 to 30 million in Europe between 1347 and 1352. The population of Europe would not return to pre-1347 levels until around 1550.

What Were the Consequences of the Black Death?

The consequences of such a large number of deaths were severe, and in many places, the social structure of society broke down. Many smaller urban areas hit by the plague were abandoned by their residents who sought safety in the countryside. Traditional authority - both governmental and from the church - was questioned for how could such disasters befall a people? Were not governors and God in some way responsible? Where did this disaster come from and why was it so indiscriminate? At the same time, personal piety increased and charitable organisations flourished.

In agriculture, those who could work were in a position to ask for wages & the institution of serfdom was doomed.

The Black Death, as its name suggests, was given a personification for people to help understand what was happening to them, usually being depicted in art as the Grim Reaper, a skeleton on horseback whose scythe indiscriminately cut down people in their prime. Many people were simply bewildered by the disaster. Some thought it a supernatural phenomenon, perhaps connected to the comet sighting of 1345. Others blamed sinners, notably the Flagellants of the Rhineland who paraded through the streets whipping themselves and calling for sinners to repent so that God might lift this terrible punishment. Many thought it an unexplainable trick of the Devil. Still others blamed traditional enemies, and age-old prejudices were fed leading to attacks on, and even massacres of, specific groups, notably the Jews, thousands of whom fled to Poland.

Even when the crisis had passed, there were now practical problems to be faced. With not enough workers to meet needs, salaries and prices soared. The necessity of farming to feed people would prove a serious challenge, as would the huge fall in demand for manufactured goods as there were simply far fewer people to buy them. In agriculture specifically, those who could work were in a position to ask for wages, and the institution of serfdom where a labourer paid rent and homage to a landlord and never moved on was doomed. A more flexible, more mobile, and more independent workforce was born. Social unrest followed, and often outright rebellions broke out when the aristocracy tried to fight these new demands. Notable riots were those in Paris in 1358, Florence in 1378, and London in 1381. The peasants did not get all they wanted by any means, and a call for lower taxes was a significant fail, but the old system of feudalism was gone.

After the major famines in 1358 and 1359 and the occasional resurgence, albeit less severe, of the plague in 1362-3, and again in 1369, 1374 and 1390, daily life for most people did gradually improve by the end of the 1300s. The general welfare and prosperity of the peasantry also progressed as a reduced population reduced the competition for land and resources. Land-owning aristocrats, too, were not slow to pick up the unclaimed lands of those who had perished, and even upwardly mobile peasants could consider increasing their landholdings. Women, in particular, gained some rights of property ownership they had not had before the plague. Laws varied depending on the region but, in some parts of England, for example, those women who had lost husbands were permitted to keep his land for a certain period until they remarried or, in other, more generous jurisdictions, if they did remarry then they did not lose their late husband's property, as had been the case previously. While none of these social changes can be directly linked to the Black Death itself, and indeed some were already underway even before the plague had arrived, the shock wave the Black Death dealt to European society was certainly a contributing and accelerating factor in the changes that occurred in society as the Middle Ages came to a close.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Black Death was a plague pandemic that devastated medieval Europe from 1347 to 1352. The Black Death killed an estimated 25-30 million people. The disease originated in central Asia and was taken...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Black Death of the 14th century is well known. When historians discuss "the plague" they are usually referring to this epidemic of bubonic plague caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. In his book, "The Black Death, 1346-1353: The Complete History"(Boydell Press, 2018), Ole Jørgen Benedictow estimates that 50-60% of the population of Europe died during the Black Death, an even higher proportion than the often-cited "one-third" of Europeans lost to the disease.

Less well known is that the plague continued to strike Europe, the Middle East and beyond for the next four centuries, returning every 10 to 20 years.

The name "Black Death," Benedictow suggests, is actually a "misunderstanding, a mistranslation of the Latin expression 'atra mors,'" meaning at the same time "terrible" and "black." There is no discernible correlation between the grisly name and the symptoms experienced by victims.
Related: Black Death Survey Reveals Incredible Devastation Wrought by Plague
When did the Black Death start?

The Black Death swept through the Middle East and Europe in the years 1346-1353 but it may have begun several decades earlier in the Qinghai Plateau of Central Asia.

The period of recurring plague epidemics between the 14th and 18th centuries is known as the Second Plague Pandemic. The so-called First Pandemic occurred in the sixth through eighth centuries A.D. and the Third Pandemic lasted roughly between 1860-1960.

Related: In Photos: 14th-Century 'Black Death' Grave Discovered

The Black Death, Benedictow writes, was "the first disastrous wave of epidemics" of the Second Plague Pandemic. Few of the later outbreaks in the Second Plague Pandemic were as devastating, but they nonetheless continued to kill 10-20% of the population with each recurrence.

How did the Black Death affect Europe?

As surprising as it may seem to modern audiences, medieval and Early Modern people grew accustomed to the plague, and took this periodic loss of population in stride. Plague doctors and scientists worked to understand and treat plague better, especially in terms of preventing its arrival and spread in their communities.

(Image credit: Future)

Many important developments in the history of medicine and health occurred against this backdrop of plague: the rebirth of dissection, the discovery of the circulation of blood and the development of public health measures. It is unclear why the Second Pandemic ended in Western Europe, while it continued to strike in Russia and the Ottoman Empire well into the 19th century.

When did the Black Death end?

The Great Plague of London in 1665 was the last major outbreak in England and plague also seems to have disappeared from Spanish and Germanic lands after the 17th century. The plague of Marseilles, France, in 1720-1721 is considered to be the last major plague outbreak in Western Europe.
Related: Black Death Likely Altered European Genes This is an extract from an article originally appearing in magazine.
Some historians argue that public health had improved to such an extent as to halt the spread of plague, especially through the systematic and effective use of sanitary legislation. Others point to evolutionary changes in humans, rodents or in the bacterium itself, but none of these claims seem to be holding up to recent discoveries in plague genetics.

What is clear, is that in the four centuries between the Black Death and the disappearance of plague from Europe, doctors worked tirelessly to explain, contain and treat this terrifying disease.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Black Death was one of several deadly epidemic diseases that killed thousands of people in the Middle Ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Met's Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
European warriors of the early Middle Ages used both indigenous forms of military equipment and arms and armor derived from late Roman types. One of the most widely used types of helmet was the Spangenhelm. Body armor was usually either a short-sleeved mail shirt (byrnie), made up of interlocking iron rings, or a garment of overlapping scales of iron, bronze, or horn. Shields were oval or round and made of light, tough wood covered with leather. Metallic mountings lined the rims. A hole in the center of each shield was bridged by a hand grip inside and a shield boss outside. Weapons were the spear, sword, ax, and the bow and arrow.

At the height of the Middle Ages, Saint Anselm (ca. 1033-1109) listed the equipment of a knight: his war horse (which by the thirteenth century was protected by mail and fabric), bridle, saddle, spurs, hauberk (a long-sleeved mail shirt, sometimes with a hood, or coif), helmet, shield, lance, and sword. Toward the end of the twelfth century, a new flat-topped type of helmet with side plates, which hid the face of a knight, became popular. To distinguish friend from foe, the knight's triangular shield was painted with identifying symbols. By 1200, mail for the legs, called chausses, was commonly worn by mounted warriors. Later, boiled leather or steel pieces protected the knees (kneecops), while small squares of the same hard materials covered the vulnerable shoulder joints (ailettes).

By the fourteenth century, the improved crossbow was able to pierce shields and mail armor. To counter this, knights first wore a poncho-like coat with small rectangular plates riveted to it, while articulated plate armor was developed for the legs, arms, and hands. The small, square, convex shield of the time (the targe) was eventually relegated to use in tournaments, since improved body armor made it unnecessary. A new form of helmet joined the all-encompassing great helm and the wide-brimmed chapel-de-fer (war hat). This was the more streamlined, close-fitting bascinet, with a curtain of mail (camail) from chin to shoulders, which frequently had a movable visor. By the late 1300s, solid breastplates first appeared to protect the chest as part of the short, tight-fitting coat of plates called a brigandine, while smaller plates covered the abdomen, hips, and back.

Within a few years, by about 1420, full head-to-toe plate armor was in use, completing the image of the knight in shining armor.

Norris, Michael. "Arms and Armor in Medieval Europe." In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000-. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/arms/hd_arms.htm (October 2001)

Nickel, Helmut. "Arms and Armor." In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by Joseph R. Strayer, vol. 1, pp. 521-36. New York: Scribner, 1982.

Pfaffenbichler, Matthias. Armourers. London: British Museum Press, 1992.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arms and Armor in Medieval Europe | Essay | The Metropolitan Museum of Art | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
European warriors of the early Middle Ages used both indigenous forms of military equipment and arms and armor derived from late Roman types.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The disastrous mortal disease known as the Black Death spread across Europe in the years 1346-53. The frightening name, however, only came several centuries after its visitation (and was probably a mistranslation of the Latin word 'atra' meaning both 'terrible' and 'black)'. Chronicles and letters from the time describe the terror wrought by the illness. In Florence, the great Renaissance poet Petrarch was sure that they would not be believed: 'O happy posterity, who will not experience such abysmal woe and will look upon our testimony as a fable.' A Florentine chronicler relates that,

All the citizens did little else except to carry dead bodies to be buried [...] At every church they dug deep pits down to the water-table; and thus those who were poor who died during the night were bundled up quickly and thrown into the pit. In the morning when a large number of bodies were found in the pit, they took some earth and shovelled it down on top of them; and later others were placed on top of them and then another layer of earth, just as one makes lasagne with layers of pasta and cheese.

The accounts are remarkably similar. The chronicler Agnolo di Tura 'the Fat' relates from his Tuscan home town that

... in many places in Siena great pits were dug and piled deep with the multitude of dead [...] And there were also those who were so sparsely covered with earth that the dogs dragged them forth and devoured many bodies throughout the city.

The tragedy was extraordinary. In the course of just a few months, 60 per cent of Florence's population died from the plague, and probably the same proportion in Siena. In addition to the bald statistics, we come across profound personal tragedies: Petrarch lost to the Black Death his beloved Laura to whom he wrote his famous love poems; Di Tura tells us that 'I [...] buried my five children with my own hands'.

The Black Death was an epidemic of bubonic plague, a disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis that circulates among wild rodents where they live in great numbers and density. Such an area is called a 'plague focus' or a 'plague reservoir'. Plague among humans arises when rodents in human habitation, normally black rats, become infected. The black rat, also called the 'house rat' and the 'ship rat', likes to live close to people, the very quality that makes it dangerous (in contrast, the brown or grey rat prefers to keep its distance in sewers and cellars). Normally, it takes ten to fourteen days before plague has killed off most of a contaminated rat colony, making it difficult for great numbers of fleas gathered on the remaining, but soon- dying, rats to find new hosts. After three days of fasting, hungry rat fleas turn on humans. From the bite site, the contagion drains to a lymph node that consequently swells to form a painful bubo, most often in the groin, on the thigh, in an armpit or on the neck. Hence the name bubonic plague. The infection takes three-five days to incubate in people before they fall ill, and another three-five days before, in 80 per cent of the cases, the victims die. Thus, from the introduction of plague contagion among rats in a human community it takes, on average, twenty-three days before the first person dies.

When, for instance, a stranger called Andrew Hogson died from plague on his arrival in Penrith in 1597, and the next plague case followed twenty-two days later, this corresponded to the first phase of the development of an epidemic of bubonic plague. And Hobson was, of course, not the only fugitive from a plague-stricken town or area arriving in various communities in the region with infective rat fleas in their clothing or luggage. This pattern of spread is called 'spread by leaps' or 'metastatic spread'. Thus, plague soon broke out in other urban and rural centres, from where the disease spread into the villages and townships of the surrounding districts by a similar process of leaps.

In order to become an epidemic the disease must be spread to other rat colonies in the locality and transmitted to inhabitants in the same way. It took some time for people to recognize that a terrible epidemic was breaking out among them and for chroniclers to note this. The timescale varies: in the countryside it took about forty days for realisation to dawn; in most towns with a few thousand inhabitants, six to seven weeks; in the cities with over 10,000 inhabitants, about seven weeks, and in the few metropolises with over 100,000 inhabitants, as much as eight weeks.

Plague bacteria can break out of the buboes and be carried by the blood stream to the lungs and cause a variant of plague that is spread by contaminated droplets from the cough of patients (pneumonic plague). However, contrary to what is sometimes believed, this form is not contracted easily, spreads normally only episodically or incidentally and constitutes therefore normally only a small fraction of plague cases. It now appears clear that human fleas and lice did not contribute to the spread, at least not significantly. The bloodstream of humans is not invaded by plague bacteria from the buboes, or people die with so few bacteria in the blood that bloodsucking human parasites become insufficiently infected to become infective and spread the disease: the blood of plague-infected rats contains 500-1,000 times more bacteria per unit of measurement than the blood of plague-infected humans.

Importantly, plague was spread considerable distances by rat fleas on ships. Infected ship rats would die, but their fleas would often survive and find new rat hosts wherever they landed. Unlike human fleas, rat fleas are adapted to riding with their hosts; they readily also infest clothing of people entering affected houses and ride with them to other houses or localities. This gives plague epidemics a peculiar rhythm and pace of development and a characteristic pattern of dissemination. The fact that plague is transmitted by rat fleas means plague is a disease of the warmer seasons, disappearing during the winter, or at least lose most of their powers of spread. The peculiar seasonal pattern of plague has been observed everywhere and is a systematic feature also of the spread of the Black Death. In the plague history of Norway from the Black Death 1348-49 to the last outbreaks in 1654, comprising over thirty waves of plague, there was never a winter epidemic of plague. Plague is very different from airborne contagious diseases, which are spread directly between people by droplets: these thrive in cold weather.

This conspicuous feature constitutes proof that the Black Death and plague in general is an insect-borne disease. Cambridge historian John Hatcher has noted that there is 'a remarkable transformation in the seasonal pattern of mortality in England after 1348': whilst before the Black Death the heaviest mortality was in the winter months, in the following century it was heaviest in the period from late July to late September. He points out that this strongly indicates that the 'transformation was caused by the virulence of bubonic plague'.

***

Another very characteristic feature of the Black Death and plague epidemics in general, both in the past and in the great outbreaks in the early twentieth century, reflects their basis in rats and rat fleas: much higher proportions of inhabitants contract plague and die from it in the countryside than in urban centres. In the case of English plague history, this feature has been underlined by Oxford historian Paul Slack. When around 90 per cent of the population lived in the countryside, only a disease with this property combined with extreme lethal powers could cause the exceptional mortality of the Black Death and of many later plague epidemics. All diseases spread by cross-infection between humans, on the contrary, gain increasing powers of spread with increasing density of population and cause highest mortality rates in urban centres.

Lastly it could be mentioned that scholars have succeeded in extracting genetic evidence of the causal agent of bubonic plague, the DNA-code of Yersinia pestis, from several plague burials in French cemeteries from the period 1348-1590.

It used to be thought that the Black Death originated in China, but new research shows that it began in the spring of 1346 in the steppe region, where a plague reservoir stretches from the north-western shores of the Caspian Sea into southern Russia. People occasionally contract plague there even today. Two contemporary chroniclers identify the estuary of the river Don where it flows into the Sea of Azov as the area of the original outbreak, but this could be mere hearsay, and it is possible that it started elsewhere, perhaps in the area of the estuary of the river Volga on the Caspian Sea. At the time, this area was under the rule of the Mongol khanate of the Golden Horde. Some decades earlier the Mongol khanate had converted to Islam and the presence of Christians, or trade with them, was no longer tolerated. As a result the Silk Road caravan routes between China and Europe were cut off. For the same reason the Black Death did not spread from the east through Russia towards western Europe, but stopped abruptly on the Mongol border with the Russian principalities. As a result, Russia which might have become the Black Death's first European conquest, in fact was its last, and was invaded by the disease not from the east but from the west.

The epidemic in fact began with an attack that the Mongols launched on the Italian merchants' last trading station in the region, Kaffa (today Feodosiya) in the Crimea. In the autumn of 1346, plague broke out among the besiegers and from them penetrated into the town. When spring arrived, the Italians fled on their ships. And the Black Death slipped unnoticed on board and sailed with them.

***

The extent of the contagious power of the Black Death has been almost mystifying. The central explanation lies within characteristic features of medieval society in a dynamic phase of modernisation heralding the transformation from a medieval to early modern European society. Early industrial market-economic and capitalistic developments had advanced more than is often assumed, especially in northern Italy and Flanders. New, larger types of ship carried great quantities of goods over extensive trade networks that linked Venice and Genoa with Constantinople and the Crimea, Alexandria and Tunis, London and Bruges. In London and Bruges the Italian trading system was linked to the busy shipping lines of the German Hanseatic League in the Nordic countries and the Baltic area, with large broad-bellied ships called cogs. This system for long-distance trade was supplemented by a web of lively short and medium-distance trade that bound together populations all over the Old World.

The strong increase in population in Europe in the High Middle Ages (1050-1300) meant that the prevailing agricultural technology was inadequate for further expansion. To accommodate the growth, forests were cleared and mountain villages settled wherever it was possible for people to eke out a living. People had to opt for a more one-sided husbandry, particularly in animals, to create a surplus that could be traded for staples such as salt and iron, grain or flour. These settlements operated within a busy trading network running from coasts to mountain villages. And with tradesmen and goods, contagious diseases reached even the most remote and isolated hamlets.

In this early phase of modernisation, Europe was also on the way to 'the golden age of bacteria', when there was a great increase in epidemic diseases caused by increases in population density and in trade and transport while knowledge of the nature of epidemics, and therefore the ability to organise efficient countermeasures to them, was still minimal. Most people believed plague and mass illness to be a punishment from God for their sins. They responded with religious penitential acts aimed at tempering the Lord's wrath, or with passivity and fatalism: it was a sin to try to avoid God's will.

Much new can be said on the Black Death's patterns of territorial spread. Of particular importance was the sudden appearance of the plague over vast distances, due to its rapid transportation by ship. Ships travelled at an average speed of around 40km a day which today seems quite slow. However, this speed meant that the Black Death easily moved 600km in a fortnight by ship: spreading, in contemporary terms, with astonishing speed and unpredictability. By land, the average spread was much slower: up to 2km per day along the busiest highways or roads and about 0.6km per day along secondary lines of communication.

As already noted, the pace of spread slowed strongly during the winter and stopped completely in mountain areas such as the Alps and the northerly parts of Europe. Yet, the Black Death often rapidly established two or more fronts and conquered countries by advancing from various quarters.

Italian ships from Kaffa arrived in Constantinople in May 1347 with the Black Death on board. The epidemic broke loose in early July. In North Africa and the Middle East, it started around September 1st, having arrived in Alexandria with ship transport from Constantinople. Its spread from Constantinople to European Mediterranean commercial hubs also started in the autumn of 1347. It reached Marseilles by about the second week of September, probably with a ship from the city. Then the Italian merchants appear to have left Constantinople several months later and arrived in their home towns of Genoa and Venice with plague on board, some time in November. On their way home, ships from Genoa also contaminated Florence's seaport city of Pisa. The spread out of Pisa is characterized by a number of metastatic leaps. These great commercial cities also functioned as bridgeheads from where the disease conquered Europe.

In Mediterranean Europe, Marseilles functioned as the first great centre of spread. The relatively rapid advance both northwards up the Rhône valley to Lyons and south-westwards along the coasts towards Spain - in chilly months with relatively little shipping activity - is striking. As early as March 1348, both Lyon's and Spain's Mediterranean coasts were under attack.

En route to Spain, the Black Death also struck out from the city of Narbonne north-westwards along the main road to the commercial centre of Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast, which by the end of March had become a critical new centre of spread. Around April 20th, a ship from Bordeaux must have arrived in La Coruña in northwestern Spain; a couple of weeks later another ship from there let loose the plague in Navarre in northeastern Spain. Thus, two northern plague fronts were opened less than two months after the disease had invaded southern Spain.

Another plague ship sailed from Bordeaux, northwards to Rouen in Normandy where it arrived at the end of April. There, in June, a further plague front moved westwards towards Brittany, south-eastwards towards Paris and northwards in the direction of the Low Countries.

Yet another ship bearing plague left Bordeaux a few weeks later and arrived around May 8th, in the southern English town of Melcombe Regis, part of present-day Weymouth in Dorset: the epidemic broke out shortly before June 24th. The significance of ships in the rapid transmission of contagion is underscored by the fact that at the time the Black Death landed in Weymouth it was still in an early phase in Italy. From Weymouth, the Black Death spread not only inland, but also in new metastatic leaps by ships, which in some cases must have travelled earlier than the recognized outbreaks of the epidemic: Bristol was contaminated in June, as were the coastal towns of the Pale in Ireland; London was contaminated in early August since the epidemic outbreak drew comment at the end of September. Commercial seaport towns like Colchester and Harwich must have been contaminated at about the same time. From these the Black Death spread inland. It is now also clear that the whole of England was conquered in the course of 1349 because, in the late autumn of 1348, ship transport opened a northern front in England for the Black Death, apparently in Grimsby.

***

The early arrival of the Black Death in England and the rapid spread to its southeastern regions shaped much of the pattern of spread in Northern Europe. The plague must have arrived in Oslo in the autumn of 1348, and must have come with a ship from south-eastern England, which had lively commercial contacts with Norway. The outbreak of the Black Death in Norway took place before the disease had managed to penetrate southern Germany, again illustrating the great importance of transportation by ship and the relative slowness of spread by land. The outbreak in Oslo was soon stopped by the advent of winter weather, but it broke out again in the early spring. Soon it spread out of Oslo along the main roads inland and on both sides of the Oslofjord. Another independent introduction of contagion occurred in early July 1349 in the town of Bergen; it arrived in a ship from England, probably from King's Lynn. The opening of the second plague front was the reason that all Norway could be conquered in the course of 1349. It disappeared completely with the advent of winter, the last victims died at the turn of the year.

The early dissemination of the Black Death to Oslo, which prepared the ground for a full outbreak in early spring, had great significance for the pace and pattern of the Black Death's further conquest of Northern Europe. Again ship transport played a crucial role, this time primarily by Hanseatic ships fleeing homewards from their trading station in Oslo with goods acquired during the winter. On their way the seaport of Halmstad close to the Sound was apparently contaminated in early July. This was the starting point for the plague's conquest of Denmark and Sweden, which was followed by several other independent introductions of plague contagion later; by the end of 1350 most of these territories had been ravaged.

However, the voyage homewards to the Hanseatic cities on the Baltic Sea had started significantly earlier. The outbreak of the Black Death in the Prussian town of Elbing (today the Polish town of Elblag) on August 24th, 1349, was a new milestone in the history of the Black Death. A ship that left Oslo at the beginning of June would probably sail through the Sound around June 20th and reach Elbing in the second half of July, in time to unleash an epidemic outbreak around August 24th. Other ships that returned at the end of the shipping season in the autumn from the trading stations in Oslo or Bergen, brought the Black Death to a number of other Hanseatic cities both on the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. The advent of winter stopped the outbreaks initially as had happened elsewhere, but contagion was spread with goods to commercial towns and cities deep into northern Germany. In the spring of 1350, a northern German plague front was formed that spread southwards and met the plague front which in the summer of 1349 had formed in southern Germany with importation of contagion from Austria and Switzerland.

***

Napoleon did not succeed in conquering Russia. Hitler did not succeed. But the Black Death did. It entered the territory of the city state of Novgorod in the late autumn of 1351 and reached the town of Pskov just before the winter set in and temporarily suppressed the epidemic; thus the full outbreak did not start until the early spring of 1352. In Novgorod itself, the Black Death broke out in mid-August. In 1353, Moscow was ravaged, and the disease also reached the border with the Golden Horde, this time from the west, where it petered out. Poland was invaded by epidemic forces coming both from Elbing and from the northern German plague front and, apparently, from the south by contagion coming across the border from Slovakia via Hungary.

Iceland and Finland are the only regions that, we know with certainty, avoided the Black Death because they had tiny populations with minimal contact abroad. It seems unlikely that any other region was so lucky.

How many people were affected? Knowledge of general mortality is crucial to all discussions of the social and historical impact of the plague. Studies of mortality among ordinary populations are far more useful, therefore, than studies of special social groups, whether monastic communities, parish priests or social elites. Because around 90 per cent of Europe's population lived in the countryside, rural studies of mortality are much more important than urban ones.

Researchers generally used to agree that the Black Death swept away 20-30 per cent of Europe's population. However, up to 1960 there were only a few studies of mortality among ordinary people, so the basis for this assessment was weak. From 1960, a great number of mortality studies from various parts of Europe were published. These have been collated and it is now clear that the earlier estimates of mortality need to be doubled. No suitable sources for the study of mortality have been found in the Muslim countries that were ravaged.

The mortality data available reflects the special nature of medieval registrations of populations. In a couple of cases, the sources are real censuses recording all members of the population, including women and children. However, most of the sources are tax registers and manorial registers recording households in the form of the names of the householders. Some registers aimed at recording all households, also the poor and destitute classes who did not pay taxes or rents, but the majority recorded only householders who paid tax to the town or land rent to the lord of the manor. This means that they overwhelmingly registered the better-off adult men of the population, who for reasons of age, gender and economic status had lower mortality rates in plague epidemics than the general population. According to the extant complete registers of all households, the rent or tax-paying classes constituted about half the population both in the towns and in the countryside, the other half were too poor. Registers that yield information on both halves of the populations indicate that mortality among the poor was 5-6 per cent higher. This means that in the majority of cases when registers only record the better-off half of the adult male population, mortality among the adult male population as a whole can be deduced by adding 2.5-3 per cent.

Another fact to consider is that in households where the householder survived, other members often died. For various reasons women and children suffer higher incidence of mortality from plague than adult men. A couple of censuses produced by city states in Tuscany in order to establish the need for grain or salt are still extant. They show that the households were, on average, reduced in the countryside from 4.5 to 4 persons and in urban centres from 4 to 3.5 persons. All medieval sources that permit the study of the size and composition of households among the ordinary population produce similar data, from Italy in southern Europe to England in the west and Norway in northern Europe. This means that the mortality among the registered households as a whole was 11-12.5 per cent higher than among the registered householders.

Detailed study of the mortality data available points to two conspicuous features in relation to the mortality caused by the Black Death: namely the extreme level of mortality caused by the Black Death, and the remarkable similarity or consistency of the level of mortality, from Spain in southern Europe to England in north-western Europe. The data is sufficiently widespread and numerous to make it likely that the Black Death swept away around 60 per cent of Europe's population. It is generally assumed that the size of Europe's population at the time was around 80 million. This implies that that around 50 million people died in the Black Death. This is a truly mind-boggling statistic. It overshadows the horrors of the Second World War, and is twice the number murdered by Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union. As a proportion of the population that lost their lives, the Black Death caused unrivalled mortality.

This dramatic fall in Europe's population became a lasting and characteristic feature of late medieval society, as subsequent plague epidemics swept away all tendencies of population growth. Inevitably it had an enormous impact on European society and greatly affected the dynamics of change and development from the medieval to Early Modern period. A historical turning point, as well as a vast human tragedy, the Black Death of 1346-53 is unparalleled in human history.

Ole J. Benedictow is Emeritus Professor of History at the Universtiy of Oslo, Norway.

Further Reading:

The Black Death, 1346-1353. The Complete History (Boydell & Brewer, 2004)

Ole J. Benedictow, 'Plague in the Late Medieval Nordic Countries', Epidemiological Studies (1996)

M.W. Dols,The Black Death in the Middle East (Princeton, 1970)

J. Hatcher,Plague, Population and the English Economy 1348-1530 (Basingstoke, 1977)

J. Hatcher 'England in the Aftermath of the Black Death' (Past & Present, 1994)

L.F. Hirst, The Conquest of Plague (Oxford, 1953).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Black Death: The Greatest Catastrophe Ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ole J Benedictow calculated that the Black Death, or bubonic plague, killed 50 million people in the 14th century - or 60 per cent of Europe's entire population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Walking through a museum's medieval collection will reveal many kinds weapons from that era. There seems to be all types of instruments that could be used to kill or defeat an enemy. What were the most important of these weapons - which of them had a significant impact on the Middle Ages? Here is our list of ten medieval weapons you should know about. 1. Swords
No weapon is more associated with the Middle Ages than the sword. It was used throughout the medieval world, and as Sue Brunning explains, was more than just a weapon:
Every culture that has made and used swords has viewed them as extraordinary objects. They feature predominantly in the history, cosmology and mythology of communities across the globe, from Africa to northern Europe, from East Asia to the Indian sub-continent. Their appeal is not solely attributable to humanity's timeliness fascination with death. This is clear from the spectrum of meanings attached to swords across time and space, encompassing power, wisdom, joy, protection - and fear.
For most of the Middle Ages, the sword was widely used among elite and common soldiers, with some variation between the size of its blade, and how its hilt and pommel were fashioned. Around the thirteenth century we see a change in the sword, where it blades begin to get more narrow and sharper at its point. It was because armour was becoming tougher, and the slashing style of the sword was no longer effective. It now had to be used more as a thrusting weapon, but even with these changes the sword would gradually decline as a part of vital military equipment.

The sword places first on our list of the most important weapons in the Middle Ages, not just because it was so widely used in this period, but because so many medieval cultures viewed it as a symbol of military strength and power.
2. Firearms
The weapon that would transform the medieval world into the early modern one was the gun - handguns and arquebuses wielded by individuals, and the larger artillery pieces like cannons that could strike at fortifications. The invention of gunpowder in China in the early ninth-century would trigger a series of new weapons - gradually these developments and innovations would spread from eastern Asia and fundamentally change how war was waged.

The rise of gunpowder weapons has often been talked about as a military revolution, although from our perspective it was a slow moving one, taking generations. Introduced into Europe in the early fourteenth century, even by the end of the fifteenth century these weapons could prove to be slow and difficult to wield effectively. But military commanders understood that this technology would be the dominant weapon on the battlefield, and every kingdom, state or principality was spending money and resources to build up their supplies. The states that were able to do so most effectively would emerge in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as the key powers in Europe and Asia.

See also: 10 Moments in the Invention of Guns and Gunpowder
3. Bows
An Old English riddle:

Agob's my name, if you work it out;
I'm a fair creature fashioned for battle.
When I bend, and shoot a deadly shaft
from my stomach, I desire only to send
that poison as far away as possible.
When my lord, who devised this torment for me,
releases my limbs, I become longer
and, bent upon my slaughter, spit out
that deadly poison I swallowed before.
No man's parted easily from the object
I describe; if he's struck by what flies
from my stomach, he pays for its poison
with his strength - speedy atonement for life.
I'll serve no master when unstrung, only when
I'm cunningly notched. Now guess my name.

Combine a flexible stave of wood with strong string and you have one of the most well known weapons of the Middle Ages. There could be a lot of varieties of bows, and their effectiveness could range significantly on where and how they were used. Archers were usually found at battles or siege throughout the medieval world, but they could become a dominant force in the right circumstances. The Mongols were able to conquer much of Asia and Europe through the use of horse archers, who combined a stronger type of bow with the greater mobility of their cavalry. The English would also rely on their longbowmen to win several important battles during the Hundred Years' War. As Jim Bradbury writes, "There was no military situation in which the bow could not prove useful."
4. Spears / Lances
Kelly DeVries and Kay Smith note that "since the earliest times the spear, together with the sword, was the most important and widely used offensive weapon for both the infantry and cavalry." Essentially a long stick that ended with a blade, the spear could be held and thrusted at opponents, or thrown at them. When delivered from horseback, the weapon could be far more effective - this is how the idea of "mounted shock combat" developed, in which knights would couch the spear under their arms, and use the speed of their horses to deliver a powerful blow.

The spear of the knight evolved into the lance - the weapon we commonly associate with jousting and tournaments, another lasting symbol of the Middle Ages.
5. Trebuchets
Emerging in the twelfth century, the trebuchet was the first important development in siege machines since ancient times. It marked a great improvement over weapons like the catapult, becoming a more formidable way to attack castles and other fortifications.

Jim Bradbury explains how it worked:
A container for heavy materials was placed on one end of a whippy pole, a sling to hold the stone or other missile at the other end. The pole was on a pivot. The loaded end was winched down and released. The weight made the loaded end rise rapidly and eject its contents, the sling whipping over at the last minute to give added impetus.
While today the trebuchet is more seen as an engineering challenge for college students or a fun way throw pumpkins, in the Middle Ages it represented a new technology that forced military commanders to adapt their defences, a process that would be further enhanced by gunpowder weapons.
6. Crossbows
While this weapon existed since ancient times, it was strangely not mentioned very much in early medieval Europe. Then, in the twelfth century, the crossbow made a comeback, serving as a way for regular soldiers to fight back against the better armoured and equipped knights. Helen Nicholson describes the crossbow:
It was not a quick weapon to use, because spanning the bow (drawing back the string, locking it back with the 'trigger' and placing the arrow or bolt in position, ready to fire) took much longer than for the simple bow. But it could be used effectively by a comparative novice and was much more powerful than the simple bow. In a siege situation, or where a large group of crossbow archers were operating on a battlefield, it could be devastating, for it could pierce chainmail.
While the crossbow did get criticized as a dishonourable weapon, its use only grew in the Later Middle Ages, and by the fifteenth century cities were hosting large-scale shooting tournaments. The crossbow would remain a much used weapon, even during the coming age of guns.
7. Greek Fire
The secret weapon of the Byzantine Empire, it was responsible for several important military victories. It is such a secret weapon that even today we are not sure exactly what it was - the theories include that it was based on saltpetre or quicklime - but its effects were devastating. It was a liquid substance, that could be fired out through something like a modern-day flamethrower. Most importantly, it could not be extinguished by water, which meant that naval ships would be particularly vulnerable to its effects.

Naphtha was a similar type of weapon - at least in its effects - and was based on petroleum. This was used in the medieval Middle Eastern world. Like Greek Fire, those who wielded it had significant advantages when facing opponents that just relied on the force of their steel and iron.

8. Polearms
They were called halberds, pikes, glaives, and several other names - these were all variations on a type of weapon in which one carried a long staff that was equipped with a type of blade that could be used for cutting and thrusting. They became more prevalent in Europe around the year 1300, as it could be shown that armies that used these weapons could defeat cavalry in battle. The key was in creating formations and coordinating them on the battlefield - as a large group they could impenetrable to attack and deadly on the offensive.
9. Axes
This weapon is more associated with the Early Middle Ages, although it was still used in later centuries. While peoples like the Franks wielded smaller axes as throwing weapon, it was the larger version, used in Scandinavia, that we know so well. Jim Bradbury explains:
The battle-axe was popular with the Vikings and often called a Norse or Danish axe. Vikings sometimes named their axes, such as 'Witch' or 'Fiend', suggesting their personal nature. The Vikings used bearded axes named from the shape of the drooping lower edge, and broad axes. The latter emerged in c.1000, sometimes with a steel edge welded to the blade. The blade was narrowest at the socket, broadening to a curved edge about a foot long. 10. Daggers
Essentially a smaller version of the sword, one should not disregard it as an important weapon of war. Ranging in size from 30 to 50 centimetres (11 to 20 inches), it was a common instrument, both on the battlefield and in day-to-day use. Easy to carry - and hide - daggers could be used with a minimum of training. An attacker could wield this weapon to cut, stab or throw, often in tight situations. By the thirteenth century many versions of the dagger emerged in medieval Europe - anelace, baselard and stiletto to name a few - that differed in how the blade was fashioned or how you gripped it. Meanwhile, the misericorde got its name for being associated with the end of battles, when the victorious soldiers had to decide what to do with there defeated opponents - either offer them "mercy" and take them as prisoners, or give them a "mercy" killing.

See also: Top 10 Strange Weapons of the Middle Ages
Further Reading:
Jim Bradbury, The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare (Routledge, 2004)

Jim Bradbury, The Medieval Archer (The Boydell Press, 1985)

Sue Brunning, The Sword in Early Medieval Northern Europe (The Boydell Press, 2019)

Kelly DeVries and Kay Smith, Medieval Military Technology, 2nd edition (University of Toronto Press, 2012)

Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage, Medieval Armies and Weapons in Western Europe (McFarland and Co., 2005)

Sean McLachlan, Medieval Handgonnes: The first black powder infantry weapons (Osprey, 2010)

Helen Nicholson, Medieval Warfare (Palgrave, 2004)
Top Image: Morgan M.638 Maciejowski Bible fol. 29

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ten Most Important Weapons of the Middle Ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Walking through a museum's medieval collection will reveal many kinds weapons from that era. There seems to be all types of instruments that could be used to kill or defeat an enemy. What were the most important of these weapons - which of them had a significant impact on the Middle Ages?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Death | Definition, Cause, Symptoms, Effects, Death Toll, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black Death, pandemic that ravaged Europe between 1347 and 1351, taking a proportionately greater toll of life than any other known epidemic or war up to that time. The Black Death is widely thought to have been the result of plague, caused by infection with the bacterium Yersinia pestis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battle of Hastings | Summary, Facts, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Battle of Hastings, battle on October 14, 1066, that ended in the defeat of Harold II of England by William, duke of Normandy, and established the Normans as the rulers of England. Learn more about the background and details of the Battle of Hastings in this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Middle Ages for Kids: Black Death Plague

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about the Black Death during the Middle Ages and Medieval times. Plague that killed many in Europe and throughout the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are the weapons of the Middle Ages? There were basically two types of armed men during the Medieval era who used different weapons available during the Middle Ages:

The Knights

The Foot soldiers, who included the Archers

The Medieval men-at-arms held weapons according to their status and position which was determined by the Feudal system. The weapons, weaponry, armor and horse of the Knight were extremely expensive. Lords were expected to provide soldiers who were trained in a variety of Middle Ages weapons. Knights were supported by their soldiers and the Middle Ages weapons used by the lower classes included

The Knights themselves used different Middle Ages weapons riding on their warhorses - every knight had spent their whole lives gaining expertise in the use of the lance, swords and daggers.

Weapons used in the Middle Ages and the influence of the Feudal System The increasing number and variety of Middle Ages weapons was partly due to the requirements of the Medieval Feudal System. Life lived under the Medieval Feudal System demanded that everyone owed allegiance to the King and their immediate superior. Everyone was expected to pay for the land by providing the following services:

Middle Ages Weapons - Siege Weapons The style of warfare during the Middle Ages were fought around the power bases - the great castles of the Middle Ages. This Medieval style of warfare required different weapons - the massive and deadly siege weapons of the Middle Ages. Siege weapons were made to order! The most famous Medieval Siege Weapons used during the era included:

Middle Ages Groups of Weapons The groups of Medieval weapons, or weaponry, used in the Middle Ages therefore fell into three categories:

Siege Weapons

The Weapons used by Knights and the Crusaders

The Weapons used by the foot soldiers

Middle Ages Weapons Training
Training in the use of the lance was practised at the Quintain and included tilting and "Running at the Rings". Training in the use of swords and other close combat weapons were practised at the Pell. Knights weapons training even extended into a game - Pell Mell! Facts and information about each of this training are described via the links detailed below:

Providing trained soldiers to fight for the King

Providing equipment - clothes and weapons - for the soldiers

Skill in the use of Middle Ages weapons was necessary and a played a vital part in Medieval life. Every man was expected to be able to use a Medieval weapon. When war erupted troops were raised by the Feudal Levy when there was a 'Call to Arms'. Under the Feudal Levy men were required to fight for a limited period of 40 days - under certain circumstances this could be increased to 90 days.

Middle Ages Weapons
Each section of this Middle Ages website addresses all topics and provides interesting facts and information about these great reminders of bygone times. The Sitemap provides full details of all of the information and facts provided about the fascinating subject of Middle Ages!

Middle Ages Weapons

Middle Ages era, period, life, age and times

Medieval Siege weapons - the Mangonel, Battering Ram, Trebuchet and the Ballista

Middle Ages Weapons used by Knights and the Crusaders - the Knights Templar, Teutonic Knights and Hospitallers

Knights weapons - the lance, sword and dagger

Middle Ages Weapons used by the foot soldiers Battle Axes, Maces, Daggers, Billhooks, Caltrops, Flails, Halberds, Longbows, Short Bows, Pikes, Poleaxes, Quarterstaffs, Spears and the Warhammers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are the weapons of the Middle Ages? There were basically two types of armed men during the Medieval era who used different weapons available during the Middle Ages: The Knights The Foot soldiers, who included the Archers The Medieval men-at-arms held weapons according to their status and position which was determined by the Feudal system.

# data[].attributes.body
DK Find Out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DK Find Out! | Fun Facts for Kids on Animals, Earth, History and more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit DK Find Out! to learn about dinosaurs, space, animals, nature & more. Fun learning activities for kids with videos, quizzes & galleries at DKFindOut.com

# data[].attributes.body
Simple History

# data[].attributes.body
History Chanel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Is chivalry dead?" The answer, m'lady, is a definite yes.

Cultural commentators have a strange obsession with asking whether things are dead. Time magazine in particular has courted sensationalism over the years with covers that dramatically check the pulse on "God,""feminism," or "truth." And for the past few decades, when op-eds tackle relations between straight men and women, there's a particular question they love to explore.

Chivalry is as dead as the eighth-century knight Count Roland, whose personal conduct became one model for chivalric codes in the Late Middle Ages. And although chivalry disappeared hundreds of years ago, people can't seem to stop talking about it.

The term "chivalry" loosely refers to informal codes of conduct developed by European knights in feudal systems starting in the 12th century. These codes differed based on region and time period, and covered issues like whom knights should show mercy to and whom it was okay to attack.

In these feudal systems, knights worked in paid service to their lords, and enjoyed social superiority to the serfs or peasants. In the 1984 book, , the late historian Maurice Hugh Keen argued that chivalric codes had served as a kind of international law of war that protected these knights as an aristocratic class. Keen's argument countered the widely held presumption that chivalry was more focused on courtly love and protecting women.

As feudalism faded in the 15th century, so did chivalry-but it popped up again in the 18th and 19th century when writers began to romanticize the Middle Ages. In 1790, for example, Irish statesman Edmund Burke took one look at the queen-killing French Revolution and bemoaned: "The age of chivalry is gone: that of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded: and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever."

His statement was melodramatic, especially considering no one had followed chivalric codes for hundreds of years. But Burke wasn't the only person to belatedly announce the death of chivalry. In 1823, poet Lord Byron stated that chivalry was dead, and the 17th-century novel Don Quixote had killed it. Author Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra had used Don Quixote to satirize chivalry, and Byron indignantly wrote that "Cervantes smiled Spain's chivalry away; A single laugh demolished the right arm of his country."

To Burke and Byron, chivalry was a noble ideal about how soldiers should behave in battle and life, rather than a specific code that helped protect a feudal class in the Late Middle Ages. Writers continued to think of chivalry as a military ideal through World War I, when wartime posters used images of medieval knighthood to portray war as something noble. But after the horrors of World War I, the notion of "chivalry" lost its luster as returning soldiers became disillusioned with the idea that there can be any glory in war.

A century later, "chivalry" has shed most of its association with war, at least among non-historians. When opinion columnists evoke it today, they're usually trying to make an argument about about how men (even the non-knights!) should treat women, particularly in romantic relationships. Though this equation of "chivalry" with "civilian gentlemanliness" probably has its roots in the Victorian Era, the divorcing of chivalry from war is still quite new.

Long before modern cultural commentators began wringing their hands about what feminism hath wrought, Burke and Byron were already writing their own hot takes about how the French peasants and Don Quixote had killed chivalry. The tradition of publicly declaring that chivalry is dead is almost as old as the notion of chivalry itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Is chivalry dead?" The answer, m'lady, is a definite yes. Cultural commentators have a strange obsession with asking whether things are dead. Time magazine in particular has courted sensationalism over the years with covers that dramatically check the pulse on "God," "feminism," or "truth."

# data[].attributes.body
History Channel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no more iconic symbol of medieval Europe than the knight: clad in shining armor, jousting with his rivals, wearing a token of his lady love. But knights were far more than romantic figures-they were a triumph of military technology. Accounts from the Middle Ages describe the well-trained, heavily-armed warriors trampling through enemy forces while chopping off limbs and heads.

The resources needed for horses, armor and weaponry meant that knighthood was generally a job for the rich. Most knights came from noble families, and success in battle might lead to a royal grant of additional land and titles.
READ MORE: Medieval Weapons That Maimed and Killed
Naturally, as leaders of armies, knights were responsible for winning-and losing-some of the most important battles of the Middle Ages. But they also made history in other ways. Many held important religious positions as well as military ones. Some were writers of history and poetry, helping to craft the image of the knight that we still know today.
New episodes of Knight Fight premiere Wednesdays at 10/9c. Watch here.
William of Poitiers

One of the earliest and most significant victories for knights in the Middle Ages was the Norman conquest of England, and a lot of what we know about that fight comes from William of Poitiers (c. 1020 - 1090). Trained as a knight in his youth, William went on to become a priest and scholar. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, William of Poitiers was his chaplain. Later, he provided a well-known account of the king's life and the conquest.

The priest didn't hesitate to flatter his king in his writing, describing his charge into battle with gleaming shield and lance as "a sight both delightful and terrible to see." But, despite his biases, William of Poitiers worked hard to get his facts right. For example, his account of the Battle of Hastings -a triumph of mounted knights against an Anglo-Saxon army made up mostly of infantry-is based largely on eyewitness accounts from soldiers who fought there, providing one of the most important sources for modern historians.

El Cid (Rodrigo Díaz)

(c. 1043-1099) Rodrigo Díaz, more popularly known by his title, El Cid, is best-remembered as a hero of the Spanish Reconquista, leading Christian forces to victory over Muslim rulers in Spain. But his real story is a bit more complicated.

Born into an aristocratic Castilian family, Díaz became a prominent military leader serving two kings of Castile. Later, though, he spent more than a decade fighting mostly as a mercenary, putting himself at the service of a number of Muslim leaders and earning great wealth and fame. As a commander fighting for the taifa of Zaragoza, an Arab Muslim state in what's now Eastern Spain, he defeated both Muslim and Christian armies.

Historian Simon Barton writes that it was only near the end of his life that El Cid fought the battles that established his place in history and legend. His forces captured the city of Valencia from the Muslim, Morocco-based Almoravid dynasty in 1094. Later that year, and again in 1097, he repelled Almoravid armies that attempted to retake the city.

For centuries after his death in 1099, biographers, poets and-eventually- filmmakers, celebrated him as an honorable Spanish patriot and Christian warrior against the forces of Islam.

Hugues de Payens

As the co-founder and first Grand Master of the Knights Templar, Hugues de Payens (c. 1070 - 1136) was a key figure in this history of the Crusades. Historical details of his early life are sketchy, but the French nobleman may have fought in the First Crusade, in which European Christian armies captured Jerusalem.

As Christians increasingly took part in pilgrimages to the holy city, they often found themselves under attack on the road. And so, around 1118, de Payens and eight fellow knights sought permission from Jerusalem's king, Baldwin II, to form a protective service for the pilgrims. The Knights Templar earned support from Christian authorities, including Pope Innocent II, who in 1139 granted them exemption from taxes and from any authority except his own.

The Knights Templar grew into a major economic force, with a network of banks, a fleet of ships, and chapters all over Europe. But, when Muslims retook Jerusalem in the late 12th century, the order lost its place there. More than a century later, King Philip IV of France dealt the Knights its death blow, having many of its members tortured and killed and finally executing its last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, in 1307.

Guy of Lusignan

Guy of Lusignan (c. 1150 -1194) made history not through success in battle but by suffering a disastrous loss. A French knight, Guy traveled to Jerusalem, where he married Sibylla, sister of King Baldwin IV. When the king and his successor both died, Guy became king of Jerusalem-but not without political drama. Many considered Raymond III of Tripoli to be the rightful king.

This discord among leaders in the crusader state came at the time the Muslim military campaign against them was gaining strength. In July of 1187, the great Muslim military leader Saladin attacked crusader forces in Tiberias. Despite advice from some allies to hold back, Guy mobilized the Christian forces to join what became the Battle of Hattin.

The crusader army marched for hours with little water, harried by Saladin's men, who set fires to weaken their enemies with heat and smoke. Discipline within Guy's army was poor, and Saladin won a decisive victory, which paved the way for the Muslim conquest of most Christian centers in the area, including Jerusalem itself, within a few months.

Saladin's forces captured Guy at Hattin, but quickly released him. Richard I later named Guy king of Cyprus.

William Marshal

The fourth son of a minor noble, William Marshal (c 1146 -1219) rose to become one of the most admired knights in English history. In his early years as a knight, he fought in tournaments where hundreds or even thousands of fighters would engage in melee-style mock battles. He rose to stardom traveling from tournament to tournament, and got rich on the prizes he won.

He went on to serve five English kings, and to marry the heiress Isabel de Clare, becoming one of the richest men in the country. William helped in the negotiations between King John and his Barons that led to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. When King John died in 1216, making nine-year-old Henry III king, William became Regent of England. Although he was about 70 by then, he led the young king's army to victory over French forces and rebellious barons the following year.

Geoffroi de Charny

Geoffroi de Charny (c. 1304 -1356) was known to many of his contemporaries as an exemplary knight, and we know him today mainly for the instructions he provided to his fellow knights on chivalry and battle. He fought for King Jean II of France and carried the standard of the crown into battle, a position of great honor.
READ MORE: Chivalry Was Established to Keep Thuggish Knights in Check
Geoffroi became a founding member of the Order of the Star, an elite group of knights founded by the king in 1351. Geoffroi wrote three books, apparently as a way to define the practical and spiritual demands of knighthood. His focus is on self-sacrifice and honor, which he argues are not just morally correct but also crucial to success in battle. For example, he warns knights not to fight only for the spoils of war, pointing out that greedy fighters might abandon the battle too soon to collect loot.

Geoffroi was highly pious and is the first recorded owner of the Shroud of Turin. His instructions on the elevation of a fighter to knight describe highly symbolic actions and garments, including white clothes signifying freedom from sin, a red tunic representing the willingness to shed blood, and black shoes symbolizing the readiness to face death at any time.

Edward the Black Prince

Edward of Woodstock (1330-1376), who became known as the Black Prince, was one of the most famous commanders during the Hundred Years' War. He was the son and heir apparent of Edward III of England and served in his first military campaigns in northern France at about age 16. He became a commander in the war less than a decade later. His most famous campaign was the Battle of Poitiers in 1356, where he captured King John II of France. In accordance with chivalric conventions, he treated the king with great courtesy but, before releasing him, demanded a true king's ransom of 3 million gold crowns, as well as treaties that granted England territory in what is now western France.

Edward was known for his knightly-and wealthy-lifestyle, enjoying jousting, falconry, and hunting, and providing charity to religious causes.

Joan of Arc

Born of humble parents, Joan of Arc (c 1412-1431) experienced what she saw as visions from God. Her visions compelled her to seek an audience with the future King Charles VII, who was fighting English forces over control of the French throne when she was 17 years old. She led French armies and was at Charles' side when he was crowned in 1429. In 1430, she was thrown from her horse during a battle and eventually turned over to church officials, who charged her with witchcraft, heresy and dressing as a man. In 1431, at 19 years old, she was burned at the stake.
READ MORE: Surprising Facts About Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc is often identified as a knight. That may not be how her contemporaries would have viewed her, but she shares a number of qualities with male knights of her time. She created military strategies, wore a suit of armor, and tied her armies' victories in battle to her religious faith. Like many knights, she also won a title for herself and her descendants through her brave deeds: King Charles VII granted her family arms and nobility.

Joan of Arc has long been a national hero of France. She was canonized as a saint in 1920.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no more iconic symbol of medieval Europe than the knight: clad in shining armor, jousting with his rivals, wearing a token of his lady love. But knights were far more than romantic figures-they were a triumph of military technology. Accounts from the Middle Ages describe the well-trained, heavily-armed warriors trampling through enemy forces while chopping off limbs and heads.

# data[].attributes.body
Ancient History Encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Knights were the most-feared and best-protected warriors on the medieval battlefield, while off it, they were amongst the most fashionably dressed and best-mannered members of society. To reach this elevated status, however, became more and more challenging as the Middle Ages wore on. Requirements included an aristocratic birth, training from childhood, money for weapons, horses and squires, and a knowledge of the rules of chivalry. Good looks, fine clothes, a striking coat of arms, and an ability to recite poetry and songs were optional but highly desirable extras if one wanted to rise to the very top of this elite level of medieval society.

How to Become a Knight

The process of becoming a knight started from early childhood. The typical starting point for a young lad of 7 to 10 years old was to become a page when he learned to handle horses, hunt, and use mock weapons while serving a knight proper. From age 14, the next step was to become a squire (or esquire), who had more responsibility than a page, learned to use real weapons, and started an education, especially the study of chivalry. Squires assisted knights in peace and war, holding their extra lances or shield, cleaning their armour, and looking after the several horses each knight owned. If all went well, the youth, by then around 18 years old, was made a knight in a ceremony known as a dubbing.

A new knight was given his sword blessed by a priest with the proviso he always protect the poor & weak.

For a dubbing, a soon-to-be knight had a good bath and kept a church vigil overnight. On the day of the ceremony the squire was dressed by two knights with a white tunic and white belt to symbolise purity, black or brown stockings to represent the earth to which he will one day return, and a scarlet cloak for the blood he is now ready to spill for his baron, sovereign, and church. He was given his sword back, now blessed by a priest with the proviso he always protect the poor and weak. The blade had two cutting edges - one to represent justice, the other loyalty and chivalry.

The knight awarding the honour then might attach a spur or put the sword and belt on the squire, and give him a kiss on the cheek. The squire was then knighted by a simple tap on the shoulders or neck with the hand or sword, or even a heavy blow ( colée or 'accolade') - meant to be the last one he should ever take without retaliating and to remind him of his obligations and moral duty not to disgrace the man who dealt the blow. Next, he was given his horse, and then his shield and banner, which might bear his family coat of arms. The ceremony was rounded off by a large feast.

Early knights could come from any background, all that was needed was courage and endeavour. Many early knights were given their title on the battlefield by a lord or monarch (often symbolically in the form of spurs, hence the expression 'to win one's spurs') typically after displaying particular valour and effectiveness in fighting the enemy. By the 13th century CE, though, most knights were sons of knights as the class sought to maintain its exclusivity in society.

Weapons & Armour

A knight had to be accomplished in riding a horse while carrying a long, triangular leather and wood shield and a wooden lance 2.4-3.0 metres (8-10 ft) in length, so he needed to practise guiding his steed using only the knees and feet. He must be capable of using a heavy sword with a blade up to one metre (40 inches) in length for a sustained period of fighting and fit enough to move around with speed while wearing heavy metal armour. A proficiency with additional weapons such as a dagger, battleaxe, mace, bow, and crossbow might come in handy, too.

A knight's armour was, from the 9th century CE, of chain mail made up of small interconnected iron rings. A hooded coat, trousers, gloves, and shoes could all be made from mail and so cover the entire body of the knight except the face. A full suit of mail could weigh up to 13.5 kilograms (30 pounds). Over the top, a sleeveless surcoat was worn, which allowed the knight to show off his family colours or coat of arms.

Plate armour became more common from the 14th century CE and offered better protection against arrows and sword blows. The plates could protect all parts of the body, and they came in various shapes and designs, the pieces held together using laces (points), straps, hinges, buckles, or semicircular rivets. A full suit of armour weighed from 20 to 25 kilograms (45-55 lbs) - less than a modern infantryman would carry in equipment - and so a knight who fell off his horse was not totally helpless and immobile. In any case, knights often mixed mail and plate armour, selecting their own protection according to preference, with chest plates and greaves for the legs being the most common pieces worn.

The head was protected by a helmet or helm as they were often called. First simple conical helmets were worn, then a nose guard or mask was added, and, by the 13th century CE, the fully enclosed helmet was used with further design tweaks such as a protruding snout for better ventilation or conical top to deflect blows better. Hiding the face, a helmet could be personalised to identify who was inside. Punched ventilation holes could provide decorative patterns, many were painted, and plumes of exotic birds could be added to the top. There was even a fashion for three-dimensional figures mounted on the crest which represented anything from stag horns to dragons.

The all-important horses that made knights the equivalent of modern tanks on the medieval battlefield also had particular protection. The simplest option was a cloth caparison which might also enclose the animal's head and ears and which was another handy canvas for armorial display. Better protection was offered by a two-piece coat of chain mail (one for the front and the other hung behind the saddle), a padded helmet, a plate head covering, or an armour plate of metal or boiled leather to protect the chest.

Some knights operated as independent mercenaries &, for the more adventurous & pious, there was always the opportunity presented by the Crusades.

To use these weapons effectively and get used to wearing a load of metal armour, it was a good idea for a knight to put in a bit of practice before meeting the challenge of actual warfare. There were specific devices for training such as the quintain - a rotating arm with a shield at one end and a weight at the other. A rider had to hit the shield and keep riding on to avoid being hit in the back by the weight as it swung around. Another device was a suspended ring which had to be removed using the tip of the lance. Riding a horse at full gallop and cutting at a pell or wooden post with one's sword was another common training technique. All of these skills helped the knight fulfil their primary functions as bodyguards to nobles, as members of a garrison guarding a castle, or on the battlefield as the elite element of a medieval army. Some knights operated as independent mercenaries and, for the more adventurous and pious, there was always the opportunity presented by the crusades which punctuated the frequent European secular wars of the Middle Ages. For the really devout Christian knight, there was also the option of joining a military order such as the Knights Hospitaller or Knights Templar, where one lived much like a monk but at least had the opportunity of the best training and weapons of all medieval knights.

When not on active military duty, a knight could keep their weapons and horse riding skills sharp by practising in tournaments. These competitions took two formats, either a mêlée which was a mock cavalry battle where knights had to capture each other for a ransom or the joust where a single rider armed with a lance charged at an opponent who was similarly armed. The knights protected themselves with a shield and full armour which was often specialised for jousting so that the face and arms were better protected but mobility was compromised. The knights rode towards each other at full gallop along a 100-200 metre (110-220 yards) long area known as the lists with the aim of knocking the opponent off his horse. To minimise the risk of injury (but certainly not eliminate it), weapons were adapted such as the fitting of a three-pointed head to the lance in order to reduce the impact and swords were blunted (rebated).

There were even opportunities to dress up and do the whole thing in fancy dress, most often as knights of the Round Table or figures from ancient mythology. As there were local aristocratic ladies present, tournaments were also a chance to display some chivalry. Tournaments became such prestigious events with prizes for the winners that knights began to practise for them in earnest and circuits developed with many knights becoming, in effect, professional tournament players.

Clothes

Knights were amongst the most dedicated of all medieval fashion followers, indeed, other professions such as the clergy were often rebuked for trying to make themselves look as flashy as the knights did. Although clothes were not too dissimilar between the classes, those who could afford it tended to wear better quality materials with a much better fit. Tunics (long, short, padded, sleeveless or long-sleeved), stockings, cloaks, gloves, and hats of all shapes and sizes were all worn. In the Middle Ages, clothing was often considered a part of a person's taxable property; such was its value. In addition, it was very much a status symbol, with certain materials being restricted to the aristocrats by law.

The most common material was wool, but silk, brocade, camel hair, and furs allowed a knight to make a fashion statement. Bright colours were favoured such as crimson, blue, yellow, green, and purple. Individuality was expressed in all the extras that could be added to the basic clothing of the day such as metal pieces, gold and silver stitching, buttons, jewels, glass cabochons, feathers, and fine embroidery. Belt buckles and brooches to tie a cloak at the shoulder were an especially popular way of showing off a bit of bling. All in all, then, with flamboyant taste and both the means and right to wear the full range of the medieval wardrobe, a knight was easily spotted when walking down the street.

Leisure Pursuits

The most common leisure activity for knights was hunting. Beaters and dog handlers stalked the animals in the local forest or a protected deer park using leashed dogs. When ready a horn was blown to signal the off, and then the nobles rode with a pack of hunting dogs to chase down animals such as deer, boars, wolves, foxes, and hares. Once an animal was cornered, a noble was given the opportunity to make the kill using a lance or bow.

Falconry was another popular pursuit. Without firearms, a falcon was the only way to catch birds which flew beyond the range of an archer, although for the medieval nobility, the whole sport had a mystique and mythology about it beyond the expedience of bagging a few fowl for the table. Popular birds of choice were the gerfalcon, peregrine, goshawk, and sparrowhawk, amongst others, and their typical prey was forest birds but especially cranes and ducks.

As part of the code of medieval chivalry, knights were expected not only to be familiar with poetry but also capable of composing and performing it. Books, really sheaves of illuminated manuscripts, were available on all manner of subjects besides poetry, though. There were books on chivalry, table manners, hunting, stories from ancient Greece, the legends of King Arthur, and biographies of famous knights like Richard I of England (r. 1189-1199 CE) and Sir William Marshal (c. 1146-1219 CE). Finally, there were games such as backgammon, chess, and dice, which might involve betting, all useful to while away the hours on those lengthy castle sieges that characterised medieval warfare.

Chivalry

A knight was expected to be chivalrous at all times. The ethical, religious and social code of chivalry pervaded the upper echelons of medieval society and was made ever more important with an endless stream of romantic literature extolling the virtues of chivalrous conduct. In order to maintain a good reputation and gain favour with those in power, a knight, therefore, needed to display such essential chivalric qualities as courage, military prowess, honour, loyalty, justice, good manners, and generosity - especially to those less fortunate than oneself. If a knight did not do these things and, even worse, if they did the opposite, they could lose their status as a knight and their reputation and that of their family was blackened forever. In such a case, the disgraced knight had his spurs removed, his armour smashed, and his coat of arms removed or thereafter given some shameful symbol or only represented upside down.

When a knight came to the end of his fighting days, it was not uncommon to join a military order and so ensure a nice spot in one of their cemeteries or even churches. Sir William Marshal employed just such a strategy, invested as a Knight Templar at the last minute, he was interred in Temple Church in London where his effigy still rests. Effigies of knights were a common way to ensure remembrance. Typically portrayed in full armour and bearing a shield, these stone carvings can still be seen in many churches across Europe, and they provide historians with an invaluable record of medieval weapons and armour but also remind of the reverence knights enjoyed in the Middle Ages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Knights were the most-feared and best-protected warriors on the medieval battlefield, while off it, they were amongst the most fashionably dressed and best-mannered members of society. To reach this elevated status, however, became more and more challenging as the Middle Ages wore on.

# data[].attributes.body
For PRIMARY sources

# data[].attributes.body
BBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview: The Middle Ages, 1154 - 1485

Overview: The Middle Ages, 1154 - 1485

Far from their dour reputation, the Middle Ages were a period of massive social change, burgeoning nationalism, international conflict, terrible natural disaster, climate change, rebellion, resistance and renaissance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Turmoil, crisis and the creation of a state, from Magna Carta to the horrors of the Black Death.

# data[].attributes.body
The Middle Ages.Net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information about life in the Middle Ages and important people of the middle ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School , a safe, up-to-date and age-appropriate information resource for Primary, Middle and High School.