Medieval Weapons

Was Robin Hood simply a legend that was imagined and inspired by a class who was so suppressed in the Medieval times that they brought to life a “Santa Claus” to give them a small ray of hope or was there such a person who stole from the rich to give to the poor?   History gives very little solid information to support the notion that Robin Hood really lived.  However, in the literature of this age, there is much written about this inspiring figure.  One of the first references was from a religious allegory, written by William Langdon. Here is the reference:

“Quoting the character, Sloth: “I kan noght parfitly my Paternoster as the preest it syngeth, But I kan rymes of Robyn hood and Randolf Erl of Chestre.” which J. C. Holt, in his 1989 revision of Robin Hood, translates as, “I do not know my paternoster perfectly as the priest sings it, But I know rhymes of Robin Hood and Randolph, earl of Chester.” As can be readily determined “Sloth” is one of the deadly sins.  This was his confession to the priest and obviously knowing the rhymes of Robin Hood was considered a “slothful” use of time.

Another relevant reference to the name, “Robin Hood”, is from court records and reads as follows:

“The earliest contender is one Robert Hod, described as a fugitive, who is mentioned in the York assizes record of 1226: his goods were being confiscated because he owed money to St. Peter’s of York (Owen, 1936). The debt is not unlike that of Sir Richard in the Gest and certainly consistent with the fierce hostility toward abbeys and rich churchmen through the whole myth. A slightly later reference speaks of William Le Fevre, son of a smith, who was indicted at Reading for larceny in 1261 (Crook, 1984). Nothing very surprising about that, except that in the following year there is another reference to him, and now he is called William Robehod, as if that surname has become appropriate to his condition as a fugitive from justice. ”

If you are interested in pursuing the literary references for Robin Hood.  The following is an excellent resource:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/rh/rhhome.htm

Whether Robin Hood truly existed is not relevant, because the legend was  a significant symbol in Medieval Europe, and still applies in our modern day.  It is a story of a struggle between ordinary men against powerful and often evil forces in society.  It also relates a story of a band of common men who attempted to assist the unfortunate around them.  These circumstances still apply today.

If Robin Hood was a real character,  there are several facts that can be determined about him.  He lived in Medieval times when the Pope encouraged all men to accept the Crusader cross and travel to the Middle East to free the Holy Land from its Moslem captors.  The myth of Robin Hood is tied to the reign of Richard I who was called “the Lionheart.” Richard did in fact accept the cross and transported a large force to recapture Jerusalem.  Legend relates that Robin attempted to save the absent crusading king’s  crown from his ruthless brother, John Lackland.  History does support the information that John was not a very efficient ruler or neither was he adept at war as was his older brother, Richard.    John’s Mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, did not intially think very much of her youngest son.  She left him in the hands of his father, Henry II and spent most of her time in Aquitaine with her favorite son, Richard.

Robin Hood was known as an expert with the Long Bow. Lore suggests that he could send an arrow a mile with his Long Bow This popular Medieval weapon was constructed from the ewe tree.  If he carried a battle sword, it was likely what is now called a Crusader sword.  He probably did carry a dagger, because this weapon was small and more readily available to his class.  He probably wore a jerkin (shirt) either of leather or rough cotton.  Also, an axe was in his arsenal of weapons, because the tool could also be used to clear land as well as being employed for protection.  If he needed protection from the sword of an enemy he carried a buckler (a small round shield).  For head protection he wore a battle helmet that was flat on top and covered his face.

In fact, it is also historical fact that King Richard on his return from the Holy Land did visit Sherwood Forest where Robin and his merry men were said to reside.  It is not known that he visited the forest to find Robin Hood and thank him for his efforts on his behalf.  This is only reported in legend.  But the story is told in poetry or a song from a traveling minstrel:

                                                                       ” King Richard hearing of the pranks

                                                                         Of Robin and his men,

                                                                          He much admir’d and more desir’d

                                                                          To see him and them.

                                                                          Then with a dozen of his lords,

                                                                         To Nottingham he rode:

                                                                          When he came there, he made good cheer

                                                                          And took up his abode.”

I for one am a believer in the existence of Robin Hood.  It is a great story and who doesn’t love a good story?

The legend prevails that Rome ascended with the fall of Troy.  Aenas, the famed Trojan, escaped the destruction of Troy and made his way to Italy where he married a princess.  They bore two sons,  Romulus and Remus; the boys were left to die by the Tiber river.  A she-wolf saved them.  They decided to consecrate a city by the river where the miraculous she-wolf saved them.  They fought over the name of the city and Romulus son and thus began the powerful city-state of Rome.

Many historical events and persons of the ancient past are often shrouded in legend and they make great stories.  Whatever the origins of Rome, it became one of the most powerful states that ever existed under the sun.

The Legionnaire was the foundation of the Roman army.  The Legions of the early Roman army were an outstanding group, formidable in battle and in all areas of seige warfare.  They were also excellent engineers; they built roads, bridges, and water systems for the empire.

They were professional soldiers who served with each other often for twenty years.  They fought very hard for the empire, but they were more dedicated to their legion than to the state.  The system worked well for Rome, because each Legionnaire fought his heart out for his comrades  They were prohibited from marrying, so their loyalty was to their fellow soldiers  After service of twenty years, they were allowed to retire with a pension and an allotment of land.  Perhaps they married at this late stage of life.

They had the finest weapons of the day.  They often made changes to make them more efficient.  They wore a breast plate armor called lorica segmentata.  It was made of iron strips that were held in place by leather strips.  This replaced the solid breastplate which restricted movement.  They wore an iron helmet with a peak to prevent blows to the head.  They carried a colorful shield made of wood and metal.  The Roman foot soldier carried three weapons.  They carried a 7 foot javelin which is now referred to as a pilium.  By their side was also a pugio ( small dagger) and a two foot short sword (gladius).  On their feet they wore sandals with hobnails on the bottom.  With this equipment they conquered most of the ancient world.

The Roman Legionnaire was powerful, dedicated to his legion, and a very effective fighting machine.  The colorful Roman soldier is a popular character for reenactors or even with the individual that desires a unique Halloween costume.

Whenever we imagine medieval battles we often think of knights and soldiers charging into battle while brandishing their sword and shield. The sword and shield became so well known that people started to look at it as being cliché, and started to think that other more exotic weapons, like chains, maces, and two handed axes were more potent in battle. But the truth is, a sword and shield, in terms of offensive and defensive potency, cannot be beat. There are other weapon combinations that might have more offense or more defense than a sword, but none that have the same powerful combination of both.

Within the standard sword shield combination, the sword acts as both an offensive and defensive weapon, slashing at the enemy while also having the capacity to parry oncoming attacks. The shield is mostly used for defense, and a strong shield combined with a smart wielder can block even the most powerful bludgeoning attack (which would have an advantage over a sword alone). The shield can also be used for offense, as the sword parries an attack from the opponent, the wielder can use the shield to bash or push the opponent backwards. Because of this, the sword and shield, while standard and cliché, is near unbeatable in melee combat to this day.