The carnage of modern war is horrible, but make no mistake, the carnage of medieval battle was no less so. Although bows, crossbows, javelins and a few other missiles were used, the majority of the combat took place hand to hand. The weapons used were spear, sword, axe, mace, and variations of the above.
Until plate armor dulled the effectiveness of the sword (pun intended), it was the most popular of weapons. But axes, maces, and polearms were also much in evidence. The sword, however, due to its versatility, was the preferred close-quarters weapon.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
There are three major sources for information dealing with the cutting power of the sword. One is archeological evidence. Although it is rare that one can say for sure what weapon caused a particular kind of wound, when taken in conjunction with literary sources, the second source, one can make safe assumptions. The third is experimentation. Now, while it isn't moral, legal or practical to go out and chop on people, one can test the sword against other objects, up to and including sides of beef.
Surprisingly enough, archeological evidence is fairly plentiful. There are skeletal remains that show the effects of combat, and I feel sure that many of these were inflicted with a sword. [FIGURE: Photo of reproduction Viking sword from Hank's collection, Peter to pick.]
On July 27, 1361, Waldemar, King of Denmark, attacked the city of Visby on the Isle of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. Visby had long been an important way station for trade with the east and was very wealthy. With avarice worthy of his Viking ancestors, Waldemar launched the attack, quickly overcame the city's defenses, and sacked the city.
It is doubtful that the defenders were trained warriors. Contemporary chronicles considered them poorly armed and largely peasants. Considering the percentage killed over the number taking part in the battle, it must have been a terrible slaughter. Close to 2,000 defenders were killed, and it is doubtful if they had fielded more than 4,000 in all.
After Waldemar gathered up his treasure and left, which probably took two or three days, the inhabitants started about the mournful business of burying the dead. It was July, and warm, and after a few days the bodies were not in the best of condition. This may account for why so many were buried in their armor rather than being stripped. (There were a few who were cleaned and buried properly, but it is uncertain why they were singled out.)
The mass burial sites were excavated in the early part of the 1900s and the work continued for several years. As graphic and distasteful as it may be to many, the information it has provided gives a very good picture of the horror and berserk fury that must have been a routine part of medieval warfare.
There is one skeleton of a man who has had both legs severed, and it appears to have been done with one blow! The blow landed on the right leg below the knee on the outside, and then struck the left leg slightly below and on the inside. Since it appears to be unreasonable that someone would stand still with one leg hewn off, that one blow cut off both legs below the knee. As can be seen in another section of this book, that is not so astounding after all. There are several skeletons where a foot has been severed, and there are many with cuts to the lower leg. Indeed, this seems to have been a major target. A rough estimate is that close to 70 percent of the blows detected at Visby were aimed at the lower leg. This is quite understandable, as the lower leg is hard to protect, even with a shield. When you consider that these fighters were not well equipped with leg defenses it explains why they were targeted.
The head also took many blows. There are several skulls from Visby that received so many blows that you would think the enemy would have gotten tired of hitting the poor devils. Many of the skulls still have their mail hoods, and although the hoods did provide some protection, many of the blows cut through the mail and into the bone.
One of the most unsettling skulls is one where the victim had been hit a sharp blow right at the bridge of the nose. The blow was so hard that it cut through the upper jaw. When I visited Sweden I was able to view the skull and I could see that the deepest part of the cut was in the center, indicating that it was caused by a crescent-type axe blade, or possibly the point of a sword on a hard sweeping cut. [FIGURE: Photo of reproduction Viking axe from Hank's collection, Peter to pick.] Whatever caused the damage, it wasn't enough to kill quickly. The one good thing is that the skull also shows marks from several other cuts and one hole in the side close to the temple. One can only hope that the guy didn't suffer too long.
But Visby is not the only archeological source. There are a great many sources scattered all over. In Ireland there is a skull from the Viking Age that has had the whole right side sheared off. In Lima the skeleton of Francisco Pizarro, the Conqueror of Peru, showed the marks where he was stabbed repeatedly in the neck when he was murdered in 1541.* Numerous burial mounds in Europe have been opened and skeletons exhumed that show the results of many wounds. A surprising number of them show old wounds that have healed over. It is interesting to note that many of these skeletons show the wear and tear that comes from heavy physical labor.
The tomb of Charles the Bold was opened in the 19th century. He had been slain by Swiss halberdiers during the battle of Nancy (1477 AD). To quote from Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages, a halberdier "struck down Charles of Burgundy, all his face one gash from temple to teeth." When the tomb was opened it was found that he had been stabbed in the side, also in the fundament, and indeed his skull had been split down to his teeth! All of the wounds probably had been made by halberds. [FIGURE: Photo reproduction haldberd from Hank's collection, Peter to pick.] It is easy and gory to visualize what happened. He was struck a downward blow by some stout Swiss with a halberd. The force of the blow would force him down and off of his saddle, and two other Swiss, seeing openings, would have stabbed with spear or halberd. Not that either blow was needed.
Of course these blows were not struck with a sword, but it does show the amount of information that is available to a patient researcher. It is my hope that one day someone with the time and resources can gather up all of this information about ancient hand-to-hand combat and publish it. What a fascinating book it would be! This chapter can only touch on some of the rich information available.
Literary sources are another important area to explore. However, these have to be taken with a grain of salt, backed up and verified with experimentation when possible. Man has not changed any in the past several thousand years. He was just as given to hype in 3000 BC as in 2000 AD, and in England as well as Japan. When we read in "The Song of Roland" of some knight skewering a bunch of Saracens on his lance at one time we have a right to feel somewhat skeptical. When we read in early tales of some warrior bragging that the sword "Quernbiter" cut a millstone in half, we should raise an eyebrow rather than being convinced that it was evidence of some incredible new steel.
Of all the literary sources, my personal opinion is that the Icelandic sagas are probably the most reliable. They are written in a laconic straightforward style that does not allow for flights of hyperbole. When we read that a sword flashed and someone had their leg cut off at the knee, we feel that it is very likely exactly what happened. There is a pragmatic acceptance of life and its trials and tribulations that run through the sagas, coupled with the acceptance of death that makes them very believable. Iceland has excellent historical records, and events recorded in the sagas are also mentioned in other sources. There are some sagas, such as The Saga of Grettir the Strong, that many consider romance rather than a tale of actual happenings. Even so, they have the feeling of, "Been there. Done that."
In Njal's Saga, the author tells of a warrior, Gunnar, whose home is surrounded by his enemies. A Norwegian visitor with the besiegers volunteers to go see if Gunnar is at home. As he climbs up the side of the cabin Gunnar stabs him with his hewing spear through a chink in the wall. The Easterner falls and walks back to his friends. They ask "Is Gunnar at home?" and he replies, "As to that I can't say. But his halberd is." He then dies. Now, this is one tough man. One might think he is an exception, but this theme runs throughout the majority of the sagas. But do not think that these people were blind brute barbarians as the movies like to show. Far from it. Egil was one fierce, tough warrior. But his lament over the death of his son can tear out your heart.
As at Visby, the sagas record blows to the leg. Again in Njal's Saga, Gunnar and another warrior, Kolskegg try to take a ship. Kolskegg worked his way down one side of it and Gunnar the other. Vanidil came to meet Gunnar but his sword hit Gunnar's shield and stuck there fast. With a hard twist of his shield, Gunnar snapped the sword at the hilt. He struck at Vanidil so quickly that Vanidil didn't have time to defend himself and the sword sliced through both legs.
Also in Njal's Saga there is the wonderful fight on the ice. This is the one where Skarp-Hedin goes sliding by and before Thrain can put on his helmet Skarp-Hedin crashes his ax on his head so hard that Thrain's back teeth spill out onto the ice. Tjorvi throws his shield into Skarp-Hedin's path, but he dodges it. Tjorvi then hurls a spear at Kari who leaps over the spear and then plunges his sword into Tjorvi's chest, killing him instantly. (Tjorvi doesn't seem to have been very good at throwing things, does he?)
And speaking of spears, that brings us to puncture wounds.
PUNCTURE WOUNDS & HOW TO ACHIEVE THEM
There is a great deal of misinformation about wounds and their effects floating around. Most of this is due to old wives' tales that no one ever questions, and a lot is due to Hollywood and a vast number of fiction writers. If you study the subject, and check out the books on trauma, you are surprised to find out two things, seemingly contradictory: people are easy to kill, and they are also difficult to kill. Another aspect that is very important is the mental attitude of the individual. I have read of people being shot with a small caliber weapon in a nonfatal area, and then dying! Now I realize this is a book on swords, but a shot with a .22 is really not much different than a stab with a small sword. They both make nice small punctures.
I have been assured that if your leg is cut off below the knee, you can always kneel and fight on one foot! I have been assured that the reason so many stilettos were made with triangular blades was so that the puncture could not be sewn up! (I can testify personally on that one: properly treated puncture wounds are not sewn to begin with.) In short, there is a lot of nonsense out there. So let's deal with some of it.
One of the most common comments is the deadliness of the puncture wound. "Two inches in the right place is all you need!" The operative words here are "in the right place."
The rapier and the small sword were quite attractive weapons, and the small sword became a very elegant item of jewelry. No well dressed gentleman in the late 17th century would think of appearing without his small sword, whether he knew how to use it or not! They were considered, and still are today, the deadliest of swords.
But people do not die as quietly and as easily as they do in the movies. All too many times you will see the villain run through with the hero's rapier, and he staggers and falls with scarcely a moan! Now it can happen that way, but it isn't very likely. Rapiers and small swords make small holes. If they hit a major artery or vein, or a nerve plexus, death can occur rather quickly. But even a direct thrust through the heart can take as long as ten seconds to kill, depending on the amount of blood in the brain at the time of the strike. And a man can do a lot of damage in ten seconds! Like stabbing you before you can withdraw your blade. There are many fights recorded where both parties received several puncture wounds in the body, and both recovered. There were also many instances of fights where one man died on the spot, while another lingered for two weeks before dying from a thrust in the stomach. There are several excellent books on the subject of dueling and one can easily see that death was not the swift and easy thing that we see in the movies. (For a more comprehensive study of dueling I would suggest The Sword and The Centuries by Alfred Hutton, The Field of Honor by Ben Truman, Milligen's History of Dueling and Dueling Stories of the Sixteenth Century by George H. Powell. There are more books out there, but I think these are the best.)
One of the more unpleasant aspects of dueling in 17th and 18th century Europe was to win the duel by killing your opponent, only to be hanged for breaking the law . . . seems positively unsporting, doesn't it?
But we could talk a long time about dueling itself, so now let us get back to the wounds made by blades. Back in the l950s, I once saw a young man who had been attacked by two brothers. They had stabbed him three times in the abdomen, then run away, leaving the Italian stiletto still in the boy. Luckily for him, the knife was not particularly sharp. It had pushed his entrails aside, and he ended up with only three minor punctures to the muscle wall. Had he been stabbed with a knife with a wide, sharp blade, the results could have been much more unpleasant. With a wider bladed sword, such as a Viking, medieval or Roman weapon, the results of a thrust would be more deadly. The wider the blade, the more damage done.
Whereas it is possible for a rapier or a small sword to penetrate a chest cavity without seriously damaging the individual, and to even push the intestines aside (not likely, but possible), a wide-bladed sword will be cutting the tissue as it passes in and out, making a much larger, and much more deadly, wound.
The comment on a "stab in the right place" seems to be Roman in origin. But even then the operative words are "right place." The Roman gladius was a very effective cut-and-thrust weapon. Many think that it was only used in the thrust, but it is capable of delivering a very strong cutting blow. But its primary use was as a stabbing weapon. Held close to the body, the moment an opening presented itself the short sword could leap out and inflict a very deadly stab. With a blade close to two inches in width, and very sharp, the stab of a gladius was nothing like the pinprick of a rapier. [FIGURE: Photo of a reproduction gladius from the collection of Hank Reinhardt. #218]
I was recently asked if the thrust was known and used in medieval times, and if so, why was it considered so innovative and dastardly by gentlemen in the Renaissance? The thrust itself has been known since Og, son of Wog, picked up a sharp stick and stabbed Ug with it. The whole history of weaponry is filled with a collection of sharp and pointy things meant to cut and stab and generally hurt people. (Also heavy things meant to crush, but we're talking about thrusting here.) Early Iron Age swords probably did not have a good enough temper for good thrusting, but they were still used that way.
For example, there is a very beautiful Celtic Iron Age rapier in the Berne Historisches Museum. [FIGURE: Drawing of Celtic Iron Age rapier] The blade is a flattened diamond in cross section, perfect for thrusting, and could easily be a 16th-century rapier except for the grip. There is a whole class of medieval swords, Oakeshott Type XVII, that cannot be used for cutting: the blades are too thick, and they are obviously designed to be used for thrusting. Jean de Joinville tells of one knight who took his sword and couched it as a lance and used it against a Saracen during the crusade of St. Louis (1248–1254).
So, the answer to the question was the thrust known in Medieval times is actually quite complex and involves such variables as the deterioration of swordplay in the early 13th century, the increased use, and then disuse of armor, the growing popularity of the duel, and the effectiveness of the weapon involved.
Although the knight was primarily a horseman, and looked down on the infantry, he could, and did, fight on foot. Before the increased use of armor, the sword was the primary weapon for close combat. The actual fight itself was quite energetic, with a great deal of movement with many heavy blows being dealt and blocked.
As armor improved, and more and more foot soldiers as well as knights were equipped with it, the sword became less and less effective as a weapon. To a degree this was acceptable, because in many medieval fights between knights the object was not to kill your opponent, but rather to render him helpless so that he could be captured. After all, when ransomed he was worth a great deal of money! Another very valid reason for this "compassion" was that if you started killing others of the aristocracy, you might very well be killed yourself!
But there were efforts to improve the effectiveness of the sword. After all, some enemies just needed killing and to the devil with ransom. These swords varied. Some had very wide blades capable of cutting through mail with ease, but then use of plate armor expanded and this didn't work. So there were developed swords that were long, and very rigid, with points that could punch through any area that was thin, and could find the chinks in the plate and deliver a deadly thrust.
But armor improved as well, and soon a sword was just about useless against good plate armor. So first a knight would use a lance—a long-distance weapon—against an enemy in plate. But once the lance was shattered, a mace, axe, or war hammer became the preferred weapons. [FIGURE: Photo of a reproduction war hammer from the collection of Hank Reinhardt.]
On the ground, by the middle of the 15th century in Europe the shield had been discarded, and the weapon of choice was a two-handed one. One should not forget, as many do, that the choice of weapon during this period was based on military and tactical considerations, and not which weapon was best for individual dueling. In a large mass of men, the pike was a terror-inspiring weapon, but it was damn near useless when used by one individual. The halberd, which was an effective hand-to-hand combat weapon, lacked the length to be able to stand up to an armored, mobile knight, and thus became a secondary weapon. [FIGURE: Drawing of pike vs. halberd]
Another and very important consideration is to look at combat at the time of the introduction of the rapier, the late 15th century. At this time the individual warrior, whether foot soldier or knight, was a man in pretty good condition. (Obviously not all of them: we know several died of heart attacks in various battles, as they weren't used to wearing their armor.)** But the real fighting man was far from a wimp. He wore heavy armor, typically weighing 50–55 pounds, and was used to dealing heavy blows in order for them to be effective. [FIGURE: Peter photo of your guys? Line drawing?] In battle he killed his enemy, or so badly injured him that he had to quit fighting. In civilian life, should he be attacked by thieves or bandits, or be challenged to a duel, it was close to the same thing. Heavy blows, dodging, ducking, parrying, and you attacked and killed your enemy any way you could: cutting, thrusting, or bashing him in the head. Generally speaking, all of the participants were fairly robust and vigorous specimens. There was a great deal of skill involved, but it was skill that also required a great deal of physical stamina.
Then along came the rapier. Even in its first days it meant a different type of fight. There was much more finesse, the blade was used to parry, and the primary attack was the thrust. But this was not the thrust of the sword, one that made a large and deadly wound, but rather a small hole, and one that frequently took several days in which to kill your enemy, and so he was frequently able to fight on, even after several sword thrusts. Which made it quite dangerous even to the winner. This was not the only thing found offensive by many of our renaissance bravos. As a weapon for war it was worthless, it did not require the stamina of the swordsman, and it did not favor the forthright attacks and blows that many thought were the knightly heritage.
England probably resisted the rapier longer than any other country. George Silver, the Gentleman Scholar of the Sword, author of Paradoxes of Defense, hated the rapier with a passion. My personal inclination is to think he hated the Italians and French more than he did the rapier. In much of his writing he shows a clear understanding of weapons and how they were used. But in regard to the rapier he simply refuses to see any of its advantages. But the young men in other areas took up the rapier with a vengeance. It was lightweight, dressy, and was ideal for the hot-blooded fight and the duel, which was gaining in popularity. [FIGURE: Photo, antique rapier in the collection of Hank Reinhardt.]
No, it wasn't the thrust that caused the indignation among the older gentlemen of the Renaissance, it was the whole idea of the rapier; useless in war, and only fit for dueling, and then using moves that looked positively effeminate! Almost like dancing!
As I have stated before: Man doesn't change, but fashion does. Within a generation the rapier was all the rage, and there were as many schools in its use as there were dances.
But I digress, as I have a tendency to do.
CUTTING WOUNDS
The cut is much like the thrust: in the right place it can be deadly, and it can instantly incapacitate your opponent. The power that a good double-edged sword can deliver is impressive, or frightening (depending on which end of the blade you happen to be).
There is the tale of Theodoric, who killed the King of the Ostrogoths by having his men hold him, while he struck him at the juncture of neck and shoulder. The blow was so strong that Odovacar was split all the way down to his hip! This seemed to have shocked Theodoric, as he is reported to have exclaimed, "In truth, the wretch has no bones!"
Now, this is a pretty powerful blow and you can be easily excused if you think it is a bit of hype. After all, that is a long cut, and there are plenty of ribs in the way. But think back to the Battle of Visby, and the awful damage recorded there. And there is another factor that must be considered. Bones are very tough, but they are not as hard as many like to think. The older you get, the harder and more brittle the bones get, but live bone in a fairly young man is not much tougher than a sapling.
The other thing that must be looked at is the sharpness of the blade. Japanese swords have long been known for their sharpness, but being sharp was not something exclusively Japanese. Many European swords were just as sharp, and there are Viking era swords that still possess a very sharp edge. When you look at how flat and thin many blades are, you realize that in their heyday they were probably very sharp, and quite able to hew through bone.
Just as there is no way to generalize about puncture wounds, there is no way to fully comment on the effects of a cut. We have tales from the Napoleonic Wars (Sword, Lance & Bayonet, Charles Ffoulkes & EC Hopkinson) of soldiers receiving several head wounds from sabers who were able to continue fighting. But we also hear of one having his head cut off from the blow of a saber, so it is apparent that it depends on the blow, what is being cut, and the sharpness of the sword.
I believe that today too much attention is paid to the military sword, perhaps because many of the records that are still available detail battles and the wounds suffered. But the military saber of the 19th century was generally not a very sharp sword, and in many instances was not sharpened at all. General Nathan Bedford Forrest was highly criticized for having his men sharpen their swords, and so were the British for the 1796 Cavalry saber that was considered to be too "brutal" for war.*** I think one of the reasons behind this is the modern military theory that if you wound a man it would take two to care for him, thus eliminating three men from battle. That sounds pretty good, unless you're the guy facing the enemy. You've just whacked him in the head, cutting a very deep scalp wound, so he's bleeding, but shows no intention of running away, and is also mad as hell. No thanks, I want my weapon to be as effective as possible.
Not long ago a friend of mine sent me a clipping from High Adventures in Tibet and in it the authors detailed a raid by some bandits in Tibet. It showed several wounded, with all the wounds made by swords. The bandits had all been on horseback and as a result almost all of the wounds were head wounds. They really were pretty ugly, but all of the people survived. The swords used seemed to have been simple single-edged blades of the saber style, with blades in the 33-inch length range with a blade width of about 1 1/4 inches: that is, simply not heavy and sturdy enough to cut through the hard bone of the head. [FIGURE: Drawing of Tibetan sword]
But a well made, well sharpened sword in the hands of a man who knows how to cut can do a tremendous amount of damage. We read in epics of all ages and areas of people having arms and legs cut off, and even being cut in half! The Roman Ammianus Marcellinus comments: "The heads of others were split through mid-forehead and crown with swords and hung down on both shoulders. A most horrible sight." In Caesar's Commentaries a Roman soldier greets him and when Caesar looks at the man blankly, he says, "It's no wonder you don't recognize me, because my helmet and face were split by a Spanish machaira." [FIGURE: Drawing of a machaira.]
In the same sea battle related in Njal's Saga between Hrut and Atli, is an example of another limb-lopping blow. Atli leaped onto Hrut's ship, one man turned to meet him but was knocked off his feet by a thrust from someone else. Now Hrut faced Atli. Atli hacked at him and split his shield from top to bottom, but just then he was struck on the hand by a stone and dropped his sword. Hrut kicked the sword away, cut off Atli's leg and then killed him with the next blow. Such is the fate of pirates.
The question then becomes, just how well can a sword cut? Seemingly a simple question, but first we have to decide what type of sword we are talking about.
The Iron Age sword, the Viking sword and the early medieval sword were pretty close to being in the same broad category. Generally about 29–33 inches in length, with a width of about 2 inches, most had only a slight taper, and some no taper at all. During the later part of the Viking Age the sword assumed a slightly more tapering configuration, but this is covered better in the section on sword design. [FIGURE: Photos of medieval reproduction sword from Hank's collection.]
These swords weighed in the general area of 2–3 pounds. Balance would, of course, be slightly different for each sword, but generally the balance was what the owner desired, and he might make changes to suit himself.
So what can this type of sword do? The answer is that it can do much more damage than many people think, but not near the damage as portrayed in many books and movies.
I know how well I can cut. I know how well I have been able to cut, and I know how well I do now at the age of 66 (at the time of this writing of this chapter). The best cut I ever made with a sword was with a Japanese-style blade I was testing to destruction. I sheared a 3 1/8th inch sapling in half, and length of the cut was 6 1/2 inches along the diagonal. I have seen a better cut made by Jim Fikes, a blacksmith friend of mine in Alabama. But I have no illusions as to how this compares with a 10th century warrior who had grown up using a sword.
It is with this understanding that I have undertaken a great many experiments with swords on how well they cut, and how well they cut armor. But for more on how to cut, see chapter 13.
So to answer the question: could the sword make the cuts huge cuts described in the sagas and other historical sources? Not only do the archeological data support that conclusion, my own attempts at cutting do, too. Will they make them every time? Many factors, including type of sword, strength and placement of the blow, and opponent's armor (or lack thereof) and age (and therefore bone density), enter into the equation.
Sources and Further Reading Suggested by Hank
General history:
Ffoulkes, Charles & EC Hopkinson, Sword, Lance & Bayonet, Cambridge University Press, 1938.
Oman, Sir Charles, The Art of War in the Middle Ages. Greenhill Books, London, first printed 1924.
Oakeshott, Ewart, The Archeology of Weapons. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, first printed in 1960.
Oakeshott, Ewart, The Sword in the Age of Chivalry. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, first published 1964, reprinted 1994.
On dueling:
Hutton, Alfred, The Sword and The Centuries. Charles E. Tuttle, Company, Rutland. First printed 1901, Tuttle edition 1973.
Truman, Ben C., The Field of Honor. Fords, Howard & Hulbert, New York, 1884.
Millingen, J.G, History of Duelling, Vols. I & II. Richard Bentley, London, 1841.
Powell, George H., Dueling Stories of the Sixteenth Century. A.H. Bullen, London, 1904.
Silver, George, Paradoxes of Defense. First published 1599.
Archeology
Thordeman, Bengt, Armour from the Battle of Visby 1361, Volumes I & II. Almquist & Wiksells, Uppsala, 1939.
Fiorato, Veronica, Anthea Boylston & Christopher Knusel, Blood Red Roses:The Archeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2000.
Contemporary Literary Sources
Caesar, Julius (102–44 B.C.), Commentaries on the Gallic War.
Caesar, Julius (102–44 B.C.), Commentaries on the Civil War.
Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae, A.D. 353–378.
Norse sagas including Njal's Saga and Egil's Saga.
de Joinville, Jean, Memoirs. His memoirs can be found in The Chronicles of the Crusades, translated by Margaret Shaw. Penguin, London, 1963.
The Song of Roland
Froissart, translated by Geoffrey Brereton Chronicles. Penguin Books, Baltimore, 1968.
High Adventures in Tibet
* New York Times, August 11, 1891.
** E.g. In 1415 at the battle of Agincourt the Duke of York died of exhaustion and heatstroke in his armor, as cited by Ewart Oakeshott, A Knight and his Armour, page 26. 1961 Lutterworth Press, London.—Whit Williams.
*** The French actually petitioned the British government asking them to discontinue its use.—Peter Fuller