CHAP, v.] 



CHIVALRY. 



159 



although that was one object. They were almost the 

 only amusement of that age, and were very popular, 

 inasmuch as they gave an opportunity for gathering large 

 numbers of the nobility together, where they could 

 display their knightly graces, in the management of their 

 horses and weapons, in the presence of the ladies. The 

 games or exercises generally commenced with a combat 

 between two parties led by two leaders. The weapons 

 were blunted, and the regulations made for the purpose 

 of preventing serious wounds were very full and par- 

 ticular. The squires and attendants formed behind their 

 masters as if in action, to assist them if dismounted. 

 The armour used in tilting was very much heavier than 

 that used in war, as no man could have worn tilting 

 armour through a contested battle. In fact, knights were 

 occasionally smothered in their armour in the tourna- 

 ments. 



Simulated attacks and defences of fortresses or en- 

 trenchments were also one of the displays common at 

 tourneys, but they taught no art of manoeuvring, they 

 were all simply rehearsals of the same type of severe 

 hand-to-hand struggles between knights. 



During the period of chivalry, as we have said, the art 

 of war was at a very low ebb. The infantry had 

 gradually declined until their influence on the result of 

 battles was reduced to nothing, and we look in vain for 

 evidences of tactical skill in the battles of the age. In 

 one or two actions only do we see the slightest trace of 

 battles being won by the use of stratagem, or of 

 manoeuvres upon the field. 



The battle of Hastings, fought on the 14 th October, 

 1066, between William the Conqueror at the head of his 

 Norman chivalry, and the Saxons under Harold, is the 

 most striking instance of the tactics of the time. King 

 Harold took up a defensive position and protected his 

 front by a fence made of shields and wicker-work. His 

 army was composed mainly of foot-soldiers, while 

 William's was almost altogether cavalry. We have 

 fortunately a very detailed account of this battle, by 

 Robert Wace, who wrote it in the reign of Henry II., 



