The history of weapons ownership in Middle Ages and earlier

[AxeMental]

Does anyone know if weapons could be owned by the average person during the Greek and Roman periods (for instance, could citizens own swords, or was that something only the military kept). What about non-citizens (say travelling merchants)? Were weapons turned in before entering a city? Did Romans living in Roman cities have weapons in their homes? At what point in history did weapons become controlled? I'm assuming the Germanic barbarian tribes had no limitation on ownership of weapons, while the more organized kingdoms of the early Dark Ages and up probably didn't allow surfs and peasants from owning weapons? I have seen little on this topic. Also, what qualifide as a weapon vs. a farm tool, and were peasants allowed things like spears and bows?

Gygax mentions someplace peasants weren't typically allowed to keep weapons in the Midievil period, I assume this was a historical truth.

Perhaps P&P knows something about this topic?

[Stonegiant]

For one thing the cost of a weapon was often preemptive of its ownership which was the case of swords and superior armor. Thus this is part of the reason that the lower classes often fought with weapons like clubs and spears and were lucky to own a shield and helm, let alone maybe padded/quilted armor. Much like it is in this day and age

[PapersAndPaychecks]

For clear answers on the Middle Ages, we'd better hope Matthew reads this thread.

On the late Dark Age stuff, it depends who you mean by "people".

In Norse law, if you were going to the village council (which they called a "Thing"), you had to bring your spear or your axe. If you had both a spear and an axe, you had to bring your axe.

Conclusion: Male Norsemen who were eligible to attend the Thing automatically owned a weapon.

Even female saxons could and would own weapons, though. One of the oldest surviving wills in English law is the will of a Saxon lady. She passed on a total of eleven swords to her friends and relations, so the swords were clearly her property.

There's a dividing line between "owning" a weapon and carrying one, though. I don't know of any evidence for any woman carrying a weapon in the dark ages. I guess it probably happened, but very rarely.

Free men owned and carried weapons. But the vast majority of people in England were thralls -- kind of like serfs -- and they probably wouldn't have been armed. This is where Gary is getting his "peasants" from, I should imagine.
_________________________________

Much later, the right of an Englishman to carry a weapon is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. (What it actually says is that Protestants can carry weapons so they can kill Catholics more conveniently... the English Bill of Rights is a very old document and it's been largely repealed now in favour of more compassionate legislation.)

Private citizens could own military-grade firearms right up until the second world war.

[Flambeaux]

I'm not aware of any restrictions own the bearing of arms during Roman rule, with the exception of generals under imperium and their troops not being permitted inside the pomerium of Rome herself. But this was violated at the institution of the Dictatorship of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. This set the precedent for Caesar's march on Rome, although IIRC he didn't enter the city until he'd won the civil war against Pompey and the Senatorial forces.

However, I am not an expert in this field.

Late Republican Roman politics often did involve street gangs hired to rough up or assassinate opponents and their supporters.

[Flambeaux]

What it actually says is that Protestants can carry weapons so they can kill Catholics more conveniently... the English Bill of Rights is a very old document and it's been largely repealed now in favour of more compassionate legislation.

Speaking as a Catholic, I'm glad to hear that England has allowed her laws to change in this matter.

I'll pass over in silence the comments I could make about the state of the CofE today.

[Daniel Proctor]

On a related note, can anyone recommend reputable sources (books) for the amateur student of medieval history? There is a lot of pure crap out there of questionable validity.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

On a related note, can anyone recommend reputable sources (books) for the amateur student of medieval history? There is a lot of pure crap out there of questionable validity.

I've always liked Stephen Runciman's "A History of the Crusades". The man was a serious academic with a storyteller's instincts.

[AxeMental]

P&P, do you know if the post-Normal peasant could own an English Long bow? Also, who could hunt and what could be hunted. For instance, a peasant couldn't kill the "kings deer", but what about the other game animals of merry'ol England.

[TRP]

Early Rome possessed a citizens army, so anyone that could afford a weapon was just about obliged to do so. The army was divided up into the type of armor and weapon(s) that you brought to the game. Rich guys were cavalry, less rich guys were infantry and poor guys made up the psiloi. The richest guy got to be the general. That didn't always turn out so well militarily. It wasn't until the middle republic, IIRC, that the state started issuing armor and weapons, so that it could field a better army. I think that was under Marcus*, but it may have happened earlier. If it hadn't already been instituted, then it was certainly Marcus who did it.

AFAIK, it was always legal for Romans, and non-Romans, to own weapons.

*So many frickin' Marcus', I can't remember which one w/o my books. This was the Marcus that became a consul after being just an "ordinary" joe, that is, not a filthy rich senator. I think he was also the first consul to serve multiple consecutive terms as consul.

[Flambeaux]

Early Rome possessed a citizens army, so anyone that could afford a weapon was just about obliged to do so. The army was divided up into the type of armor and weapon(s) that you brought to the game. Rich guys were cavalry, less rich guys were infantry and poor guys made up the psiloi. The richest guy got to be the general. That didn't always turn out so well militarily. It wasn't until the middle republic, IIRC, that the state started issuing armor and weapons, so that it could field a better army. I think that was under Marcus*, but it may have happened earlier. If it hadn't already been instituted, then it was certainly Marcus who did it.

AFAIK, it was always legal for Romans, and non-Romans, to own weapons.

*So many frickin' Marcus', I can't remember which one w/o my books. This was the Marcus that became a consul after being just an "ordinary" joe, that is, not a filthy rich senator. I think he was also the first consul to serve multiple consecutive terms as consul.

Gaius Marius. And from everything I've read, his reforms are generally the center of the breakpoint for dividing Middle Republic from Late Republic.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

P&P, do you know if the post-Normal peasant could own an English Long bow? Also, who could hunt and what could be hunted. For instance, a peasant couldn't kill the "kings deer", but what about the other game animals of merry'ol England.

In the post-Norman period, not just "could" -- they were legally obliged to. The Assize of Arms 1252 said all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants and villeins" between the ages of 15 and 60 had to own a weapon. Even the poorest man during this period would have a bow. The idea was that it would be easier for the King to raise an effective army if everyone was a trained longbowman, you see.

For hunting rights, I'll have to defer to Matthew. My memory says the "King's Deer" were deer that lived in Royal Forests, not every deer in the whole country.

[Flambeaux]

For hunting rights, I'll have to defer to Matthew. My memory says the "King's Deer" were deer that lived in Royal Forests, not every deer in the whole country.

This comports with my understanding of things, although I also defer to Matthew's expertise.

What has to be remembered is that the populace must be armed in a feudal world because of the feudal obligations. Once a centralized state creates a standing, professional army, the state's interest becomes disarming the populace to maintain a monopoly on force.

[Nikosandros]

On a related note, can anyone recommend reputable sources (books) for the amateur student of medieval history? There is a lot of pure crap out there of questionable validity.

I've always liked Stephen Runciman's "A History of the Crusades". The man was a serious academic with a storyteller's instincts.

I agree. That's a very good book.

I also recommend the writings of Jacques Le Goff.

[Matthew]

Too much deference!

Short answer is that it varies by period and locale. Long answer...

As with Greek citizens, Roman citizens in the republic and early principate would all have had the right to bear arms, to the best of my knowledge, but no army was allowed in Rome prior to the end of the republic. This was because Roman politics were prone to turning into violent conflict, as with the unfortunate end of the political career of Gaius Gracchus.

In Graeco-Roman culture one very populous class was expressly forbidden from bearing arms, the slaves. I think as freemen they were entitled to arms, but I am not sure. The aforementioned Gaius Marius (to whom a great many military innovations accrue in a somewhat suspicious manner) caused outrage when, in a rather desperate situation, he decided to arm slaves against Sulla (this may be an exaggeration, I have read elsewhere that it was gladiators he armed, rather than all and sundry).

Which brings up an important point about slaves; sometimes they are armed to serve as bodyguards, or as a military corps, as in medieval Egypt and even Germany. So any generalisation about slaves has to be treated carefully.

Judging from the local way that the military was organised in "dark age" europe, I think it is fair to say that any restrictions on weapons that existed must have been very local. In England and France rulers passed legislation requiring minor landowners to band together to equip one of their number for military service. Greater landowners had to equip more men (the root of feudal service) and even these part timers may have initially had the title milites (knight or soldier) when so equipped. By the eleventh century a knight seems to have been merely a matter of owning arms and having a horse (chevalier, ritter), though that soon changed, and such men became sergeants and squires.

As Stuart notes, the assize of arms gives us a good indication of the situation in England in the twelfth century. In England in 1100 there were probably about 1,000,000 people and there were definitely about 5,000 knights fees (Domesday Book records attest to this). Half the population would have been women, of course, so you are indeed looking at about 1% of the male population holding knights fees at that stage. An unknown number of mercenaries, money fiefs and household knights would have probably inflated this number to some degree, not counting regular fyrdmen. The 1181 Assize of Arms in England gives us the following information:

Knights Fee or more than 16 Marks in chattels or income = Mail Coat, Helmet, Shield, Lance
Free Men with more than 10 Marks in chattels or income = Mail Shirt, Iron Cap, Lance
Free Men and Burgesses with less than 10 Marks = Padded Coat, Iron Cap, Lance

Robert Bartlett has suggested a frequency of something like 1:9:12 for these armaments, based on what the borough of Dunstable owed to the Royal Levy c. 1200. That works out at something like 100,000 armed men in England (say 20% of the male population).

For serfs things were a bit different. Whilst they were probably were not expressly forbidden from bearing arms, it is doubtful they could afford them or find the means to learn their use, nor were they expected to. In desperate situations, such as the prospective 1101 invasion of Robert of Normandy, a general levy would be called out, and this explicitly included "servants". Apparently, Henry had to instruct and encourage these "country folk" in the use of arms. No special dispensation seems to have been given, so it seems to have been a matter of wealth rather than status [i.e. wealth = status]. A similar situation seems to have been the case for the French before Agincourt.

It is interesting that within forty years of the conquest that the Normans seem to have imposed no real restrictions on English ownership of weapons. I am told that this was not the case in Poland and other formerly pagan areas conquered by the Germans and Teutonic Knights. Restricting the arms of a subjugated people is a widespread practice, and precaution against rebellion.

I have also heard that the crossbow was heavily controlled in England, a close accounting kept on their numbers and ammunition, which was stockpiled in royal castles. I don't think this was a matter of restricting its availability, as much as it was an attempt to buy them all up. There was a papal ban on selling crossbows and crossbow parts to non Christians, which is reminiscent of Charlemagne's prohibition on selling Frankish swords to vikings (and likely other pagans). Keeping state of the art weaponry in the country was wisely deemed important! (and this is no doubt reflected in later governmental control on guns and gunpowder).

The other group that governments are interested in disarming are disbanded soldiers, and for similar reasons as slaves and subjected peoples. Disbanded soldiers were a huge problem, as they would tend to turn to banditry if sent home or become mercenaries, in which case they went looking for a war or someone else to retain them. This last often led to the private army, and could contribute to the overmighty vassal problem. After the Stephen-Matilda civil war in the early twelfth century, one of the first things Henry II did was knock down maybe ninety percent of the castles that had sprung up (timber types, mainly) and royal control on who could build a castle continued throughout the period. Weapons were one thing, fortifications quite another.

With regard to hunting the king's deer, it does indeed refer to those in the king's forest, which is land directly held by the king (not just forest either). Boars and wolves are said to have been protected, and possibly a good deal of other game (but their inclusion might be spurious). Folk who lived in the forest and were not servants of the king might have been prohibited from carrying hunting implements, but that seems unlikely if they were only forbidden to hunt certain animals. The land itself would also have been protected against development or enclosure.

What the king might then do, is sell or rather "rent out" the rights he had restricted to various local landowners and clerics, and collect a direct profit on the lands that way.

Runciman and LeGoff are both worthy reads; if you want to supplement them with more modern scholarship you should also probably look into the works of Robert Bartlett, particularly...

The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change (950 - 1350)
England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings (1075-1225)

Anway, that's enough rambling from me.

[The Icemaiden]

In Scotland in the 1260's the law stipulated the following for the feudal host during a national call to arms would require "free service" from the knights and their hosts, which were to be equiped as follows

(minimum equipment)

Knight and wealthy gentlemen of the burghs: Full maille armour, shield, helmet, sword and lance. To be mounted on good horses barded in cuir boille or maille.

Sergeants: Full Maille armour, shield, lance and sword mounted on a lighter horse with padded or leather barding.

Common men: No mention of armours - just whatever they may have had but to be armed with a stout spear or bow and sheaf of arrows

This was given a "shake-up" when the Feudal host was abondoned in favour of a common army in the 1300's. A law passed by King Robert I in 1318 stipulates:

Knights: Full armour, shield, lance and sword. Mounted on a sturdy barded horse.

Every man whose goods are worth £10 or more must equip himself with a stout leather aketon (padded leather armour), bascinet (helmet) maille coat, gauntlets. To arm himself with spear and an axe or sword.

Men with goods worth one cow must have an aketon (padded armour) and a good spear or bow and sheaf of arrows

Checks by Royal officials were carried out at regular "wapinshaws" (show of weapons) where training and drilling took place. Failure to show up without said equipment would result in a fine.

Large towns and Burghs followed a slightly different system where large stocks of armour, crossbows, spears and axes were kept in an armoury and would be used to augment what citizens already owned in times of war.

It should be noted during the early - mid medieval periods the use of swords by the lower classes is almost unheard of (very expensive and require more training) spears, glaives, bills etc being the weapons of choice for this social class.