Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1891-07-21
THE KNIGHTS or OLD.
How the Men Who Were Sheathed In Armok
Resisted Stout Blows.

the thousand and one romances of
the days of chivalry, says correspond
ent, one naturally wonders whether
men have physically degenerated since
''villainous saltpeter" rendered cold
iron non-protection against wounds
and death. And this wonder becomes
tantalizing because the problem can
never be solved. We have no measure
or meter to judge by. But whether
more muscular than we are or not, the
knights of old were hard hitters-very
hard hitters. This is proven by the fact
that they were sometimes killed even
when in full armor. To anyone who
has seen a suit of plate armor, the idea
of the wearer being killed by any force
less than that of gunpowder seems
ridiculous. Yet when the persons, who
were appointed to report the number of
men killed at the battle of Cressy
made their return, it appeared that
among the $4,000 killed were 1900
knights There must have been
great deal of labor expended in kill
ing these solid men. If one would I'M
! dertake to batter to pieces, with the
mediaval weapons, a man covered with
boiler-plates, the task would seem rather
formidable.
Let us look into the matter of mortal
ity among "ironsides'' and endeavor to
| ascertain it's cause. A knight in full
armor was very perfectly protected.
Clad in iron even to his boot tips and
gloves and mounted upon an armor-
wearing steed he seemed absolutely i'm
pervious to every assault. Hence the
ease with which instructions were put
down.
Imagine such figure, armed with
| lance, sword, battle-ax and mace turned
| loose among herd of ill-clad, badly
| armed peasants-strong, perhaps, in
| their assertion of the great principles of
| mems equal rights, but weak in every
other way.
How the armed man could NOW down
| the rabble with as much impunity and
immunity to his own person as any
| scythe-swinger in a grain field at the
present day. How the peasants must
have cursed as their weapons turned
| harmless from the mail, while the rider
trampled them down. One man, mail
clad, was able to cope with hundred
| unprotected men.
The knights of old were used to hard
knocks. Even their sport was rough,
and yet it was not deadly. Tourna-
ments would seem, at first, to be nearly
as bad as war, But there have been
| instances where knights have held the
lists against all corners for thirty days,
\ and were neither wounded nor fatigued
at it's close. At first sight, admit,
| having a man poke a sharp-pointed
lance at you with all his force, aided
| by the momentum of his horse, would
1 in
| ton to his armor, the knight wore when
| fitting triangular shield hanging from
his neck down over his breast, making
| two thiclznesses of boiler-iron, and if his
| opponent hit his helmet, instead of his
shield, the fastenings would generally
| give way and off would go the head
| piece, instead of the rider.
Sometimes the knight was cast over
the horses tail heavily to the ground.
He made an awful jingling Qike a tin
shop with chilly and a dent in the
| earth when he struck, but his armor
protected him from fracturing any part
of his person, though he was often very
stiff and sore next day. So what killed
| the chivalry of the middle ages is not
| yet explained.
At the time when the heaviest armor
was used knight, if he fell from his
| horse, was very often unable to rise.
The weight of his harness kept him
securely fastened down, like a turtle
on its back. Sometimes he smothered
In his armor on a hot day. But oftener
could be seen the spectacle of a dozen
lightly armed soldiers hacking and
hewing at PROSTATE knight like wood
men at a log, hoping to open some
joint or find some weak spot in the
steel And also the knights were
armed with a thin dagger called the
dagger of mercy" which they could
thrust through the bars of visor into
a PROSTATE opponents brain. The
sword of the iron age was different
from the modern weapon. 1t extended
from the right heel to above the left
shoulder, being two-handed, and could
only be drawn over the left shoulder.
The sweep of the two-handed sword Of
such a noted hard-hittter as Richard
Coeur de Lion must have been serious
| to encounter, and if the armorer
had been negligent in any part
of his work and Richards sword
found that point woe was to the wearer
| of the harness When the writer saw
the armor in the tower of London he
made up his mind that the battle-axes
and maces of olden time were more
deadly weapons than were the two
handed swords, and he noticed in read
ing Froissart's chronicles that that ven
cradle authority confirms this. The
maces were of steel, very heavy, an6
often spiked. The axes were very heavy
and very sharp, meant for the use Of
one hand only. But sometimes the
knights fought on foot and then they
. used two-handed axes, which very otter
{ found some weak spot in the mail anc
went through iron, and flesh, and bone
Sometimes in the siege of castles huge
stones were dropped upon the heads o.
= the besiegers, so large that they crushed
helmets like nutshells, and great sta
tionary cross-bows, which required two
or three men to draw back their bow
. strings, shot arrows through boiler-iror
and all 1t must be remembered, too
that what would ha SLIGHT wounds under