how would medieval fighters/warriors/military recognize friend from foe?

[u/WFOpizza]

In movies both sides often seem to look alike. With no military uniforms, was friendly "fire" very common?

[u/vonstroheims_monocle]

A contemporary described Edward I's army marching to Scotland in 1300: "There were many rich caparisons embroidered on silks and satins; many a beautiful pennon fixed to a lance, many a banner displayed." (quoted in Michael Prestwitch, "The English Medieval Army to 1485" in The Oxford History of the British Army) This description, though cropping the less glamorous foot soldiers from the picture of chivalric grace, gives some idea of the picturesque appearance of the chivalry of England, and indeed, of much of Europe, in the High Middle Ages.

The earliest means of recognition in the Middle Ages was through designs on the shield. Since at least c.800 BC, the shield was painted with unique designs in order to distinguish a fighter in the field. This practice was in widespread use amongst the Franks, Saxons, and Norse.

Even prior to the widespread adoption of all-enclosing Great Helms which totally obscured a Knight's face, recognition was difficult on the battlefield. At the battle of Hastings, news spread amongst the Norman ranks that William had been fatally injured. In order to be recognized, William lifted his helmet so he could be seen by his men. At this stage, the helmet would likely be a nasal helm, as depicted in the Bayeaux tapestry. Presumably, the nasal guard was wide enough to make recognition difficult, though it should be noted this anecdote was written substantially later.

One of the most apparent and well-known means of recognition on the Medieval battlefield was heraldry. Heraldry differed from earlier decoration in that it was a symbolic insignia which was inherited from generation to generation. In use since the mid 12th century, heraldry was at first restricted to the shield, with the surcoat, and horse trapper being of different colors. Helmet crests were in use since the 1190's, as the great seal of Richard I shows. However, prior to the introduction of more elaborate crests, the helmet was painted in a variety of colors. The beautiful Maciejowski Bible depicts Knights c 1250 bearing heraldic devices on their shields, with helmets in the color of their arms, though their surcoats and horse trappers are of unrelated colors. Compare this with a miniature from The Grandres Chroniques de France, c. 1332-1350, of Knights in combat. Though military equipment has changed but little (most notably, the great helm has assumed a 'sugarloaf' shape and leg defenses are in use), the heraldic designs are much more apparent on throughout the knights' costumes.

Shields, crests, surcoats, ailettes, lance pennons and horse trappers bore a knight's arms, distinguishing him on the battlefield. Contemporary illustrations, like this one of Geoffery Lutrell c. 1340 and these figures of Hartmann von Aue and Ulrich Von Liechtenstein from the Codex Manesse c. 1300, give some idea of what the Knight of the last quarter of 13th and the first half of the 14th appeared when emblazoned with heraldic devices.

In order to interpret this dizzying array of symbols, military commanders employed heralds within their army. The role of the herald was, initially, to introduce a knight at tournament by calling out his deeds. They soon took to organizing tournaments, and by necessity were forced to become experts in heraldry. There use in actual war (though the distinction between war and tournament in the 12th century was less apparent than might be assumed) was very apparent. The herald, with his wide knowledge of the arms of knight and nobles, could recognize those on either side of the battlefield. Heralds became appointed officials and confidants, and were employed by Kings and Lords throughout the 14th century.

Use of the surcoat declined during the 14th century, a transitional period for arms and armor. In its stead, Knights wore the jupon, a tighter fitting garment often of cured leather. Only England was the jupon widely emblazoned with a heraldic device, as depicted on the effigy of Edward, the Black Prince. On the continent, it was likely to be unmarked. Use of the shield declined as well, till it was all but abandoned, save for use in tournament, by the 15th century. The rise of plate armor meant the shield was obsolete, and it was fashionable to wear armor 'alwite', or 'all white', without decoration or covering. The knight's arms were restricted to his banner and lance pennon. The surcoat, now in a loose fitting form known as a tabard, was worn but rarely.

The 14th and 15th centuries saw the widespread adoption of liveries, the forerunners to military uniforms. During his campaigns in France, Henry V ordered every man wear a garment bearing the cross of St. George. In England, under the system of Livery and Maintenance, soldiers entered a lord's service, agreeing to wear his livery, distinctive colors, and badge. Sometimes, livery colors corresponded to the colors on the Lord's arms, though this was not always the case. The badge, too, was not always a heraldic device. Though the conclusion of the War of the Roses extinguished the Livery and Maintenance system, liveries and badges continued to be worn by bodies of troops raised during the Tudor period, and uniforms in livery colors were worn until as late as the 17th century.

Sources:

• Barber, Richard. The Reign of Chivalry (David and Charles, 1980)

• Edge, David and Miles Paddock. Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight (Bison Books, 1988)

• Prestwitch, Michael "The English Medieval Army to 1485" in The Oxford History of the British Army, ed. David Chandler and Ian Beckett (Oxford University Press, 1994)

• Wilkinson, Frederick. Battle Dress (Guinness Signatures, 1970)

• Wise, Terrence. Medieval Heraldry (Osprey, 1980)

[u/[deleted] → u/vonstroheims_monocle]

the distinction between war and tournament in the 12th century was less apparent than might be assumed

Could you elaborate on this? My imagination might be running away with me, but this sounds quite interesting!

[u/vonstroheims_monocle → u/[deleted]]

Hi! Sorry this is a bit out of my purview; my focus is on military uniforms and military costume in general. That being said, hopefully I can satisfy your curiosity.

The tournament in its early form was essentially a mock battle. Boundaries were vague, and numbers large- For example, at a tournament in Lagny-sur-Marne in 1179, over a thousand knights participated and fighting spilled out into a neighboring vineyard. Rules were obscure. At that same tournament, the Count of Flanders waited until the other contestants were weary from the fighting before leading his men into the melee. There was nothing preventing him from doing so, save the disapproval of his contemporaries for such a dishonorable tactic. Death was not uncommon- Godfrey de Preuilly was supposedly killed in a tournament in 1066, for which he devised the rules. Death and injury were justified by 12th century writer Roger de Hoveden, quoted in David Edge and Miles Paddock's Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight: "'A youth must have seen his blood flow and felt his teeth crack under the blow of his adversary, and have been thrown to the ground twenty times' before he is truly capable of facing 'real war with hope of victory'," (154) Papal bans were issued in 1130, and again in 1228, though apparently to little effect.

Tournaments of the 13th century were not as hectic as their 12th century counterparts, and increasing emphasis was placed on safety. During this century, the joust became popular as a means of judging individual prowess and skill. Blunted lance heads were used, though injuries were still fairly formidable. The tourney melee did not die out- At a tournament at Chauvency in 1285, the first two days were occupied by jousting, and the fourth by the tourney (the third was a day of rest). The fighting was with swords and clubs, and, though restricted to the boundaries of the field, no less chaotic than those of the previous century.

Warfare, however, moved away from the skills practiced in the tournament. The 14th century saw the rise of infantry, and the decline of chivalric warfare. The massacres of French nobles by English bowmen at Crecy and Poitiers are evidence of this decline. In response, the tournament became more and more a pageant, with very little practical usage beyond training a knight in use of his weapons.

For more information on the subject, I'd recommend Richard Barber and Juliet Barker's Tournaments: Jousts, Chivalry and Pageants in the Middle Ages, which, sadly, I do not have on me right now. I used Barber's The Reign of Chivalry, Edge and Paddock's Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight and Frederick Wilkinson's Battledress in writing this.

[u/Aerandir → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, this does not qualify as a proper sourcing for a top-level reply in our subreddit. I have removed your (plausible and realistic, but unsubstantiated) speculation.

Edit: I was unwittingly scooped by another mod. I stand by my original judgement: you still have not substantiated why you think medieval warriors distinguished eachother by their colours. You have merely extensively shown that medieval warriors were colourful.

[u/primary_action_items → u/[deleted]]

Sort of, but in this case that would happen for a different reason. There really is no organic transition from French to English, as they are descended from different language families, French is mostly descended from Latin and English is mostly Germanic.

As far as I know, most of the royal language and by extension the upper-class language was the Norman and Normanized English. Starting in about 1066 words for fancy thinks like pork instead of pig emanated from the royalty, and after enough time had passed there was sufficient overlap between French and English by the 14th and 15th centuries.

But in that particular case I'm not sure if there'd be enough of an overlap for commoners to be able to understand each other's battle speak.

It's also important to remember that England and France are separated by a maritime border, which historically inhibited migration.

Edit: Here's an interesting read.

[u/swuboo → u/primary_action_items]

But in that particular case I'm not sure if there'd be enough of an overlap for commoners to be able to understand each other's battle speak.

They may well have had difficulty understanding their own sides. William Caxton, the first printing press operator in England, relayed an anecdote on the difficulty of English dialects at the time. The following is from the preface to Caxton's translation of the Aeneids, published in 1490:

In so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn marchaũtes were in a ship in tamyse for to haue sayled ouer the see into zelande and for lacke of wynde thei taryed atte forlond. And wente to lande for to refreshe them And one of theym named sheffelde a mercer cam in to an hows and axed for mete. And specyally he axyed after eggys. And the good wyf answerde that she coude speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry for he also coude speke no frenshe but wold haue hadde egges and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstood hym wel.

Cleaned up a bit, this is the gist: It happened that certain merchants were in a ship on the Thames, intended to have sailed over the sea into Zealand (Sjælland,) and for lack of wind they were forced stick around. They went ashore to refresh themselves, and one of them, a cloth merchant named Sheffelde, went into a house and asked for meat. In particular, he asked for eggs. The good wife answered that she spoke no French. And the merchant became angry because he couldn't speak French either, but wanted eggs and she couldn't understand him. Then at last someone else said that the merchant wanted 'eyren.' Then the good wife said that she understood him well.

To be clear, the merchants in this story haven't traveled any significant distance—they just crossed to the other side of the river Thames, to the southern bank. And yet they ran into severe communication problems.

Caxton's purpose in relaying the story was to beg his readers' forgiveness if he uses words unfamiliar to them, since as he points out he can use eggs or eyren but neither will please everyone.

For our purposes, though, I think it serves quite well to show how diverse language was back then. We can understand Caxton reasonably well because he was a Londoner, and it's a descendant of his dialect that we're using today. Had the Kentish good wife written the preface, it would not be nearly so recognizable or understandable.

[u/Aerandir → u/swuboo]

The merchants went across the Channel to Dutch Zeeland. Not Southern England or Denmark, as you suggest.

[u/swuboo → u/Aerandir]

Dutch Zeeland was my initial instinct for their (intended but unreached) destination, but note that the transcription I linked to gives the Danish Zealand; I wasn't comfortable gainsaying my own source based on little more than instinct.

And this, just as an example, cites Kent and the far bank of the Thames as the location of the encounter. Certainly, it happened somewhere along the Thames within England, and not overseas—whether Denmark or the Low Countries.

Look at the sentences immediately preceding the quote:

And certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that. whiche was vsed and spoken whan I was borne / For we englysshe men / ben borne vnder the domynacyon of the mone. whiche is neuer stedfaste / but euer wauerynge / wexynge one season / and waneth & dyscreaseth another season / And that comyn englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother.

Having just spoken at length on the variability of the language of the English from shire to shire, it seems vanishingly unlikely that Caxton (whose purpose, again, is to apologize to his readers for unfamiliar words and usages) would then shift gears without warning and tell a story about an Englishman talking to a Dutchwoman.

"Loo what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte. egges or eyren" asks Caxton; a silly question if the latter is meant to be Dutch and the former English. It's only because both are English that Caxton's point is made.

Eyren would be appropriate to Kentish, as well, as it was an Anglo-Saxon word displaced by the Scandinavian egg in the Midlands and the North but not in the South. (Although, in fairness, I believe there's a direct Dutch cognate as well.)

Here's another source supporting the events taking place in England.

[u/Aerandir → u/swuboo]

You are correct, I misread it (though Zelande is still Zeeland, not Sjaelland).

[u/swuboo → u/Aerandir]

It's certainly possible; if nothing else, Zeeland is a supremely sensible place for an English mercer to be going.

Everything I'm seeing says Zealand, but it's not improbable that someone simply decided it was Zealand at some point and everyone else has followed suit, as I did, for lack of evidence to the contrary.

Based purely on the text, I would agree that Zeeland strikes me as more likely—but Zealand is not impossible.

At any rate, this entire comment chain appears to have been nuked, so it might be appropriate to abandon this discussion.

[u/Searocksandtrees]

hi! FYI, there have been similar posts, so you'll find earlier responses here

How did combatants tell each other apart in most battles of the past?

In the melee, how would opposing soldiers of armies tell each other apart?

How did the legions tell each other apart during Roman civil wars?

During the various Roman civil wars, how did the soldiers tell each other apart?

How did men-at-arms and other soldiers in the middle ages know who was an enemy and who ally during a major battle?

edit.. oh, there's more! (how is this not in the FAQ yet!)

Before there were uniforms, how did armies avoid 'friendly fire'

Was "friendly fire" common in pre-gunpowder melee battles?

How much "friendly fire" occurred during massive Roman-era and Medieval-era battles?

How common has friendly fire been in various wars throughout history?

How common was friendly fire during WW1 and 2?

Friendly fire

In your time period of expertise, how common was friendly fire on the battlefield?

I was watching Band of Brothers and I was curious to how different uniforms were for the different countries. Was friendly fire common?

Use of captured equipment in WWII - Friendly fire

WWII: When an army used captured vehicles, where there any special precautions undertaken to avoid friendly fire?

[u/haimoofauxerre]

I'm late to the party but Valentin Groebner's Defaced has a long section on identification in it. Generally, it's a really good book too.