Chivalry

In Byzantium

In Islam

The situation was completely different in the Byzantine Empire. It is inappropriate to speak of chivalry – cavalry is the appropriate term. Of course, it was a prestigious force, the men who comprised it, especially in the case of the heavy cavalry, were often from privileged – if not rich – backgrounds, which was not the case with the foot soldiers. But, in theory at least, the foot soldier enjoyed the same legal status and the same privileges, notably fiscal, as the cavalryman . The soldier was in the service of the state and paid by the state, be he a foot solider or a cavalryman[1]. The cavalry was not a separate caste.

Furthermore, Byzantine military tactics gave a prominent role to the infantry. The heir of Roman traditions and the legion, the infantry played the starring role in the army of the Eastern Empire in Late Antiquity. The cavalry was an auxiliary force, operating on the wings. But the Byzantine army was highly professional and remarkably adaptable, and the trend would gradually reverse, if not in number than at least tactically: the enemies’ best combat techniques and weapons were adopted[2].

The Byzantine Empire had a heavy cavalry and a light cavalry. On the one hand, it was a response to the Sasanian heavy cavalry, sometimes described as “mountains of steel”, a cavalry as heavily armoured, with horses that were also protected, inspired by its enemies as well as by the Roman clibanarii. On the other hand, mobility became increasingly crucial to confront the peoples of the steppes and the soldiers of the Umayyad armies. These soldiers, although they fought mainly on foot, were extremely mobile because they travelled on horseback or by camel. In the sixth century, Procopius of Caesarea thus described a cavalry that he deemed at the forefront of the military technology of the period: cavalrymen equipped with good defensive weapons, greatly inspired by those of the Avars, comprising a coat of mail or knee-length scale armour, a helmet and a small shield. Their offensive weapons were the lance, the sword and the bow. The horses were not protected because it was a shock cavalry as much as it was mobile mounted archers[3].

In the following centuries, archery – and mounted archery in particular – declined. It was never representative of Byzantine cavalrymen[4]. It was especially entrusted to contingents of mercenaries, as in the Roman Empire, from nomadic peoples with a strong tradition of archery.

At the same time, the heavy cavalry made progress. In the tenth century, Nicephorus Phocas founded an elite regiment, the cataphracts[5], inspired by the contingents of heavy cavalry of Roman antiquity. They were very expensive and thus few in number, no more than 500. These men, very heavily armoured from head to toe, rode armoured horses and fought with a two-handed lance, a sword and a mace. Their task was to shatter enemy lines. From the eleventh century, their role was entrusted to Latin mercenaries who imported their new fixed horizontal lance techniques. Despite their efforts, the Byzantine cavalrymen never managed to rival them in the use of the lance[6]. They were later eclipsed by foreign elements, who dominated the cavalry in the twelfth century: the light cavalry very much resembled those of the Turks and Bulgars, while the heavy cavalry was modelled on Western knights[7].

Thus, foreign influences played a key role in the evolution of the Byzantine cavalry. Located on the borders of East and West, the empire was open to the influences of both worlds. Heir to the Roman Empire and the traditions of Mediterranean antiquity at first, the infantry and rigorous discipline were the main assets of the imperial army. But far from sticking with the ancient models, the Byzantine technique adapted to modern warfare and to the enemies of the period, especially those from the East. Against the warriors of the steppes, the Sasanian cavalry and Arab foot soldiers, an effective cavalry was needed, both heavy and light, which would gradually rise to pre-eminence in the army. But the cavalry never took on the decisive role that it played in Western or Muslim societies because the infantry, even though its importance varied over the centuries, was always a crucial part of Byzantine tactics. And even though it adopted or was greatly inspired by foreign techniques, it was also greatly reliant on foreign contingents who were more experienced in the handling of certain weapons (mounted archery or the fixed horizontal lance technique, for example) and recruited for that purpose.

In Western Europe

In the Arab-Muslim world, particularly in the eastern part, the word furūsiyyafurūsiyya thus refers to horsemanship as well as hippology, hippiatrics (if the soldier had to take care of his mount during an expedition), farriery (if he had to shoe it), and the techniques and technologies of war: the handling of weapons, on horseback and on foot, such as the bow, the lance, the mace, the sword, siege engines and incendiary weapons, the stratagems and tactics of war (to use them and to understand enemy manoeuvres), diplomacy, various practices useful for combat, such as swimming (in case a river had to be crossed, for example), wrestling (in case of hand-to-hand combat), and hunting and polo (considered training for war) – hunting enabled one to acquire dexterity and endurance, and the gestures of polo were very similar to those of the sabre[8].

means much more than simply horsemanship or cavalry. It is a vast concept that covers all the theoretical and practical disciplines that an elite soldier must know and master to be able to handle any situation. During this period, an elite soldier was first and foremost a cavalryman. But he could be unhorsed or have to dismount. He could also have to take part in the siege of a city or use diplomacy and stratagems. The word

It is generally agreed that the Mamluks of the Sultanate of Egypt and Syria (1250–1517) brought this art to its apogee. As elite soldiers, their days were punctuated by the practice of various furūsiyya exercises and their power was absolutely indissociable from it. But it seems that in this domain, they were, to a great extent, the heirs of the Abbasid Caliphate, which they long served (the word mamlūk refers to a military slave; before taking power for themselves, Mamluk contingents served numerous Muslim sovereigns).

This complex art was gradually elaborated under various influences to result in a skilful horsemanship in the tenth century[9]. The Arabs transmitted the ethical aspect – magnanimity, courage, generosity – found in the notion of fāris (cavalryman or knight), their horsemanship being very rudimentary.

The Byzantines and Sasanians transmitted horsemanship and complex weapon-handling techniques elaborated for a heavy cavalry.

Finally came the Turkish influence, which was predominant and characterised by archers on horses at full gallop. The Turks used the composite bow, which had great penetrative force. Mastering the composite bow required constant practice. Using it on a moving horse was a tremendous feat. But the Turks were admired by all their enemies for their dexterity and skill at shooting backwards and forwards at full gallop. Like most nomadic peoples, they used the karr wa-l-farr technique (attack and withdrawal): a horde of lightly armed cavalrymen, in no determined order, rushed at the enemy. They then attacked the enemy using a hail of arrows with precision, then set off again, still at full gallop, avoiding the adversary’s blows, and tirelessly renewed their assault.

Mounted archers helped disorganise the enemy. Then came the hand-to-hand combat with lances, at which the Mamluks trained regularly, and maces. Last was combat with swords. The sophisticated horsemanship of the Mamluks was thus a synthesis of these various forms of horsemanship, the influence of Turkish mounted archers was predominant, but not exclusive.

The Frankish knights were impressed by the Mamluk and Turkish cavalries and praised their skill as horsemen. But shooting from a distance posed an ideological problem for them. They considered it cowardly, which was not the case for the Muslims. On the other hand, while the Mamluk cavalrymen also sported armour and chain mail, they were never as protected as Western knights: they required a certain freedom of movement to practise archery.

In the Muslim West, the Maghreb, and al-Andalus, horsemanship was less elaborate. For several centuries, the Muslim armies of Spain imitated the weapons and combat techniques of their Christian enemies: coat of mail, thick and long lance, shield and caparisoned horse for the mounts of important figures[10]. The Muslim specificity came from the Berber warriors, advocates of a light cavalry, the most famous of which being the Zenati. Originally horse herders, they were considered the best cavalrymen. Their favourite weapon was not mounted archery, but the lance, lighter and shorter than those of the knights. They also used a sword and shield made out of antelope leather. Mounted on saddles with low pommels that did not hinder their freedom of movement, they also used the karr wa-l-farr technique (common to nomadic peoples, as we have seen) to harry their enemies. At first, they impressed with their horsemanship the sovereigns of al-Andalus who had contingents come to serve as mercenaries in their armies alongside cavalrymen who were heavily armoured in the manner of Western knights. These excellent mounted soldiers quickly became the elite force of Andalusian armies. Their skill also impressed Christians who, as we have seen, made contingents of mercenaries part of their armies before learning the art of the light cavalry themselves. Furthermore, they immortalised their enemies in epic romances, the Romanceros fronterizos in which they made the Berber cavalryman the counterpart of the knight[11].

Thus, furūsiyya was the product of a synthesis of various influences. It was raised, especially in the East, to the level of an elaborate art characteristic of Arab-Muslim civilisation and which had no reason to be envious of Western European chivalry. As for all cavalries, the invention and perfecting of the portable firearm brought its pre-eminence in the armed forces to an end.

A. C.

Western Europe was the scene of radical technical and ideological developments in the cavalry[12]. These developments rapidly spread throughout Europe, from north to south, and from there to the entire Mediterranean basin.

In Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the armies of Western Europe inherited the military traditions of the Roman Empire, which gave pre-eminence to the foot soldier. Up to the Carolingian period, the cavalryman fought with more or less the same weapons as the foot soldier, and in the same style: he was armed with a sword and a lance. The lance was used as a pike or a javelin. There was no technique proper to combat on horseback, as being mounted could limit freedom of movement.

It was during the Carolingian period the heavy cavalry began to gain in importance, at least in people’s attitudes, on the one hand, because the warrior on horseback was associated with the holder of authority and, on the other, because defensive weapons began to progress and that the cavalry’s costliness meant that it was reserved for the elite.

From the second half of the eleventh century – alongside ancient methods –appeared a new lance technique that would distinguish the warrior on horseback from the foot soldier. It seems to have been developed by the Normans and rapidly spread throughout Europe, where it was adopted from the twelfth century. During combat, the cavalryman gradually lowered his lance to a horizontal position and held it firmly wedged under his right armpit, his hand guiding the head. Seated on his saddle with pommels that had become higher, he rode his mount at full gallop and let go of the reins. This method allowed the blow to precise and penetrating, reinforced by the speed of the horse. It was a shock tactic characteristic of combat on horseback. It was really effective in a mass charge, which required cohesion and discipline, and went hand in hand with the improvement in defensive weapons: the cavalryman was protected by a coat of mail, the hauberk, which would gradually become longer and be reinforced from the thirteenth century with iron plates, before making way for full armour. The helmet, initially equipped with a nosepiece, would gradually close up to leave only slits for the eyes and breathing holes. The shield, held with the left hand, would, on the contrary, disappear as the defensive equipment became sufficient.

In terms of offense, the lance was the arm characteristic of the new mounted warrior. It gradually became longer, attaining a length of 3–4 metres. To prevent it from slipping when held, it was equipped with a vamplate and later with a hook to secure it to the armour, the lance rest. When the lance broke, the cavalier fought in the melee and used his sword or, more rarely, a mace.

The horse was also protected with chain mail blankets, then by a chanfron and iron plates. The animal had to be strong and quick, as well as accustomed to the melee.

This equipment was very expensive and thus reserved for the elite. Moreover, as the method of combat was characteristic of cavalry, the men who practised it became aware of their distinctiveness and formed a separate caste of warriors, which quickly became very prestigious, with its own codes and statutes. It was no longer a question of horsemen and cavalry, but of knights and chivalry.

Even if knights only represented 10 per cent of an army and were only really effective against a shock cavalry and not an army of foot soldiers, in most people’s way of thinking at least, they constituted the principal military force.

Widely used during the Crusades, the chivalric method of combat was closely observed in the Byzantine Empire and by certain Muslim sovereigns, who would adopt it.

The method was also emulated in Muslim Spain. But the inverse was also true. In al-Andalus, before the arrival of the Berber light cavalry (see the section on the furūsiyya), the Muslim armies were greatly inspired by their Christian enemies in equipping and training their cavalry. It was a heavy cavalry described in the Spanish sources as riding a la brida, that is, with the leg extended, the heavily protected cavalryman seated in a saddle with high pommels. This way of riding was adapted to shock tactics. The arrival of Berber mercenaries, particularly Zenati, from the Caliphate period (tenth century) and especially in the service of the Nasrid sultanate of Granada (1232–1492) allowed the Iberian Peninsula to become acquainted with the effectiveness of the light cavalry and of the karr wa-l-farr technique. Christians were initially disconcerted by this way of fighting. Then they decided to adopt it, naming it monta a la gineta[13] in honour of the Berbers who mastered it. Keen to improve their armies – and combating the enemy using its own methods – the Christians, mainly Castilians but also Aragonese, invited Berber cavalrymen to their courts and the gentlemen learned their horsemanship, which became fashionable, especially in the border areas. The Crónicas de los reyes de Castilla is packed with references to the composition of the troops and distinguish between the men at arms, hombres d’armas, riding a la brida, and the ginetes, riding a la gineta[14], who combated Muslim troops using torna-fuye[15] , the Hispanicised version of the name karr wa-l-farr. It is, moreover, thanks to the integration of contingents riding a la gineta that Spanish armies triumphed over heavily armed French soldiers during the Italian Wars[16].

In the sixteenth century, the appearance of portable firearms, especially those used by the infantry, brought an end to the pre-eminence of the cavalry.

[13] The word jinete or ginete now means the “good horseman” in Castilian, but its exact definition would be “horseman armed with a lance and shield”. It is directly derived from the word zenete, the “ze” changing to “gi”. See Dozy and Englemann, Glossaire des mots espagnols, Amsterdam, Oriental Press, 1915.

[14] Crónicas de los reyes de Castilla desde Don Alfonso el Sabio hasta los Cátolicos Don Fernando y Doña Isabel, 3 vols., Madrid, 1953.

[15] Ibid., Crónica de Don Alfonso XI, vol. I, chap. LXXXVII, p. 226.

[16] Rachel Arié, L’Espagne musulmane au temps des Nasrides (1232-1492), Boccard, 1990, p. 253.