Help support TMP


"12th/13th c. Sergeants and Heraldry" Topic


11 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Medieval Painting Guides Message Board


Action Log

07 Nov 2020 5:26 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Medieval Discussion board

Areas of Interest

Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Axeman and Allies


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article


Featured Workbench Article

Painting a 15mm Tibetan DBA Army: The Infantry

wodger Fezian begins his series on how to paint a 15mm DBA army well, in a reasonable time frame.


Featured Profile Article

Crusader Jerusalem

Our man in Jerusalem reports on the sights of Crusader-era Jerusalem.


Featured Book Review


Featured Movie Review


2,378 hits since 7 Nov 2020
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Montfort121807 Nov 2020 4:54 a.m. PST

I'm thinking about the best way to paint up the shields (and possibly surcoats/tunics) of my western European sergeants and men-at-arms. I often see these painted with the coat of arms of their lord (e.g. English soldiers with gules, three leopards or), but, as heraldry was the personal possession of the bearer, this cannot be right; only the knight himself (and possibly his eldest son) would be entitled to bear the coat of arms on his shield. But the late 12th/early 13th century is before the full development of the liveries one finds in the Hundred Years' War/Wars of the Roses.

Does anyone have any historical evidence for what the shields of sergeants and men-at-arms bore during this period (or if they wore any distinctive marks/colours on their surcoats/tunics)? The principal tincture of their lords' coat of arms? Or were they simply bare wood?

Eumelus Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2020 6:34 a.m. PST

Most of the period illustrations I have seen focus on arms-bearing nobility, with most footmen or poorer horsemen shown without shields or shields in profile, etc. But medieval man loved color and decoration, and any serjeant or non-armigerous man-at-arms would have been a person of favor with their lord. I would assume the shields would have been painted in bright colors but perhaps only of the cheaper pigments – red lead, white lead, carbon black. It is logical to assume that many of the serjeants of a given lord would have procured their shields from the same armorers, so commonality of color and decoration would be likely but not certain.

GildasFacit Sponsoring Member of TMP07 Nov 2020 7:03 a.m. PST

Eumelus is about right for English sources but I'd add yellow ochre to the colours list. Shields would almost certainly be painted, if only for protection against rot.

Italian & German and possibly Flemish troops raised in the cities/towns may have had more uniform devices but the evidence is sketchy, at least outside Italy.

What is possible is that the use of crusader symbols (mostly various crosses in different colours) became popular, particularly with soldiers returning. It does seem that religious symbols in military contexts became more common in western Europe from the late 11th C onwards.

Personal logo Grelber Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2020 8:42 a.m. PST

I did sergeants for the Principality of the Morea, so I went with a red cross on a white field, since most of the original sergeants would have been participants in the 4th Crusade. One or two wear the Villehardouin arms, assuming they were part of the prince's personal retinue, as opposed to holders of sergeancies.
Absolutely agree with Gildas Facit though: all shields painted, no bare wood.

Grelber

Montfort121807 Nov 2020 11:49 a.m. PST

Many thanks to all. I hadn't considered the problem of rot, which is an excellent point, though I suppose the cloth that covered the shield need not necessarily be painted. I really like the idea of using single tincture fields with lower-grade colours.

From the emergence of heraldry in the late twelfth century, I think it very unlikely that non-knightly soldiers had crosses or other designs on their shields, since that would make distinguishing them from the armigerous knights difficult. And I don't think even men-at-arms of the household would have borne the arms of their lord, because that would compromise the identifying purpose of heraldry.

Swampster08 Nov 2020 2:23 a.m. PST

There are various cases of livery being given in the 13th century.
Rather than repeating stuff, TMP link has some comments.
link is a pretty useful article so I will repeat the link here.
Much of it is about day to day wear so it is not certain that it also applied to battle wear. p.295 gives some definite use in a military context though that is early 14th century. I suspect that it is an established custom by then though the author implies it was quite a novelty, at least in the degree to which it was seen.

I mentioned then a case of the the Count of Jaffa's galley having 'targes' with his arms, with one targe for each rower. It is, of course, possible that the targes were only intended for staying on the ship rather than being taken for use on land, and the mention of it may show it was unusual. However, it does give a possible example of the lowly carrying their lord's arms.

Henry III's assize of arms doesn't require shields to be brought. This can be interpreted in various ways but one of them is that their lord provided them. They might then have been painted uniformly if only because they may have been made en masse and paint was slapped on from a common vat.

Zephyr108 Nov 2020 9:03 p.m. PST

What I've done (mostly for fantasy troops) is to paint the shields or tabards with the background colors of the coat of arms (e.g. quartered white & blue), putting the fancy heraldry stuff only on the knights or leaders. Maybe not historical, but it creates a 'unit identity' for the tabletop…

French Wargame Holidays09 Nov 2020 12:46 p.m. PST

Early in the 13th coats of arms were still in their infancy, however rules were being established. They would Never wear their lords coats of arms so you are correct on that point.

It is well documented that even by the Albigensian crusade the French were wearing a white cross on a red badge, and the English a red cross on a white field, the scots a red saltire cross on a yellow field. Lords were also buying bulk cloth to outfit their men and it is available in a number of French, English and Scottish accounts.

I paint the shields in the primary field colour of the lord then paint the badge on the tabard and shield on the left part.

By the second Barons war it was becoming common to place the lords badge (either coat of arms or his identifying badge) on the left breast and in the right canton of a shield, and was fully in use by the Scottish wars.


cheers
Matt

Swampster11 Nov 2020 2:22 p.m. PST

At Lewes, the Baronial party were wearing white crosses (likely cloth on their clothing/armour) and this inspired the Royalists at Evesham to wear red ones.
The Chronicle of the reign of Henry II describes the meeting of Henry and Louis where they agree that on the forthcoming crusade the French would wear _red_ and the English _white_.
"Nam rex Franciæ et gens sua cruces rubeas susceperunt , et rex Angliæ et gens sua cruces albas susceperunt ; et comes Flandriæ cum gente sua cruces virides suscepit ."
This seems to be the only secure information on this for quite some time – the English practice perhaps changing because of the crosses at Evesham and Edward's increasing use of the flag of St George (alongside those of two other saints).
Some French books are said to say that the French didn't change from a red cross until perhaps as late as 1400, though I can only go by hearsay.

Montfort121812 Nov 2020 1:08 a.m. PST

Many thanks to all, particularly Swampster for that excellent EHR article, which I've just read.

I would read the count of Jaffa example rather differently, in that the ship carries his personal arms, with the same number of targes as oars, rather than the targes belonging to the oarsmen themselves (in other words, the ship bears the heraldry in the same way a horse's barding would).

I've also not heard of the French wearing a white cross on a red field during the Albigensian Crusade; do you have a source for that, Matt? Like Swampster, the only evidence for coloured crosses for specific nationalities that I've seen in this period is for the Third Crusade: French red, English white, Flemish green.

I think I'll paint sergeants' surcoats in a set colour for each retinue, but not attached to the lord's heraldry, and the shields in a less vibrant shade of the field of the lord's coat of arms.

Many thanks to all for the help!

Swampster12 Nov 2020 10:34 a.m. PST

I would certainly do no more than sit on the fence regarding the targes on the ship. They could well be intended to be taken off and used, but I wouldn't be sure.

Much later than the period in question, but the early 15th century painting of the Battle of Punta San Salvatore may show how shields were intended to be used – the crew of each ship carry shields with the same device and some at least may have been taken from the sides of the ship.

Lots of 'maybes' though.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.