The Give and Take of Hostages

Probably the easiest way to sum up the medieval view of hostages is a line from Adam Costa's Hostages in the Middle Ages:

In medieval Europe, hostages were given, not taken. They were a means of guarantee used to secure transactions ranging from treaties to wartime commitments to financial transactions.

The word itself has caused debate among etymologists. Some sources think it is related to the Latin hostis, "stranger." It seems more likely it is from Old French ostage, which was used for both pledge or bail and kindness or hospitality. In turn this was from Latin obsidanus, meaning literally "to sit before" and meaning people who were hostages.

A hostage was a pledge of financial payment or cooperation. One example was Philip of Courtenay. Another was William Marshal. William served five English kings, starting with Henry II. When he was a boy, his father, John, opposed King Stephen in favor of the Empress Matilda (this was during "The Anarchy"). Stephen was besieging John's Newbury Castle, and John promised he would eventually surrender the castle and offered William as hostage/surety for his promise.

John used the time it bought him, however, to reinforce the castle and send word to Matilda's forces of what was happening. Stephen found out, and ordered John to surrender immediately, or else William would be hanged. John called Stephen's bluff, saying "I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!" Stephen started to arrange to have William catapulted at the castle, but could not do it. Harming a hostage and harming a child were not easily done.William was released only after several months went by and a peace treaty was signed to end the war.

Another famous hostage was King John of France (26 April 1319 – 8 April 1364) during the Hundred Years War. The English under Edward, the Black Prince, dominated at the Battle of Poitiers, although the French army was probably twice the size. John was captured by a French exile who had sided with the English, Denis de Morbecque, who promised to lead John to the Prince of Wales. John surrendered by handing over his glove.

John was taken to England, where he lived in high style for years. He was allowed to travel the country, and had a budget that included buying pets and clothing and having his own court astrologer and a court band. He would be a hostage while a treaty (including ransom) favorable to the English would be negotiated.

His son, the Dauphin, had great difficulty arranging things back in France. The Estates General, a consulting and legislative body of the various estates in France, were angry over the mismanagement of resources (taxes and men) in a disastrous military engagement. They demanded political concessions in exchange for money, which the Dauphin refused. King John would remain a hostage, hosted by King Edward, for a total of four years. How he was able to go home, and why he then went back to England to place himself in captivity, will be explained tomorrow.

Mortgaging Children

This is the story of Philip of Courtenay (1243 - 15 December 1283). He was one of the Latin Emperors of Constantinople—the empire was established after the disastrous and mis-guided (literally) Fourth Crusade—even though the Byzantine Empire had re-established control in 1261. Technically he was an "Emperor in Exile."

He was born in Constantinople, the child of Baldwin II and Marie of Brienne. Baldwin was the last of the Latin Emperors who actually ruled from Constantinople. The difficulty with the "Latin Emperors of Constantinople" was that they didn't have the resources they would have enjoyed at home. They weren't landowners living off rents. Baldwin's "territory" was essentially the city itself, and he did not have the resources to control the country around him, where life just went on.

Baldwin went westward to beg for money, asking Rome and France to help support him financially. One plan was to supplant the Marchioness Margaret of Namur (a sometimes independent state, now basically a city in Belgium) to have the Namur revenues. It didn't matter to him that Margaret was his sister. Baldwin didn't stay to manage Namur, however, and after it was invaded by the Count of Luxembourg, Baldwin sold the rights to his cousin, Count Guy of Flanders.

Baldwin left Marie and a regency council behind while he traveled Europe begging. In 1238 they sold the Crown of Thorns to Venice for 13,134 hyperpyrons. Around that time Baldwin got money from Louis IX of France in exchange for some other relics, of which Constantinople had many.

But this is about his son, Philip, and you can guess where this is going. Baldwin and Marie borrowed 24,000 hyperpyrons from Venetian merchants. The mortgage, the surety for this loan, was their son, Philip of Courtenay. Philip was five years old at the time. He was sent to Venice to live in the household of two merchant brothers. He was there from 1248 until he was 17, in 1260, when the mortgage was paid with the help of Alfonso X of Castile.

Mortgaging your child seems like a cruel act by a desperate parent. As difficult as it is to argue with that, as usual, medieval sensibilities were different from ours, and never more so than in the idea of a hostage. In fact, the meaning and practice of "hostage" is my next topic.

The Mortgage

"Mortgage" is a Late Middle English word from Old French, and literally means "dead pledge"; folk etymology will say the name signifies the debt dying when it is repaid. The use of "mort" originally had a different meaning.

When the Normans invaded the British Isles, they introduced an item of Norman law called a "gage of land." Say I was a landowner in need of money; for a sum from a lender, I (the gagor) would give possession but not ownership to the lender (the gagee) until I paid off the loan.

There were two types of gages: living and dead. In the living gage (Norman vifgage) and the dead gage (mortgage). With the living gage, any profit made by the lender while in possession of the land—such as selling the produce from it—went toward reduction of the debt. The dead gage did not reduce the debt, however much the land might have produced for the lender.

During Henry II's reign (1154-1189), he tried to right some wrongs that occurred under his predecessor King Stephen (1135-1154), during which many properties had been improperly seized. In the Assize of Clarendon, Henry created the right of novel disseisin ("new/recent dispossession"), by which the gage could go to the royal court and claim improper dispossession. The cases were dealt with swiftly, which was a plus, but they did not actually determine proper ownership: they merely judged whether the land should go back into the original landowner's possession, and the question of ownership was left for later. Yes, it could get messy.

Novel disseisin made the lender's life difficult, since the gage could at any time make a claim to repossess the land. The practice could easily be abused by a gage.

A frequent use of mortgage after 1095 was for the money needed to afford to go on Crusade. But who had the money to lend? Surprisingly, because of generous gifts, monasteries often had the cash to offer—interest feee, of course. Because so many Crusaders came back with less money than they started with, or no money at all, or never came back because they died on Crusade, monasteries gained lots of land for grazing their sheep or planting vines.

Keep in mind, however, that mortgages were not as common as they are today when everyone wants to own a house. Things were different when generations of families stayed in one building, and cottages could be built by one's own labor, or with the help of friends and family.

Speaking of mortgages and family, however, have you ever heard of mortgaging your children? You will, if you come back tomorrow.

A Living Wage

I've talked about different jobs here and here. What could you earn in different professions?

First, we need to know the currency:

1 pound (£) = 20 shillings (s)
1 shilling = 12 pence (d)
1 pence (penny) = 4 farthings
Additionally, 1 crown was only 5 shillings, and 1 mark = 13 shillings and 4 pence
The £, s, d symbols are from French Livre, sou, and denier, which are in turn from Latin liber, solidus, and denarius.

Lists of wages are not readily available; the information must be gleaned from various sources found in various time periods. For comparison's sake, I will keep to wages in the 1300s.

An unskilled laborer in 1300 could make £2/year, or 40s; by 1390 that had doubled to £4.

A manservant in 1390 could make 20s/year; a maidservant half that, 10s.

A swineherd made as much as the maidservant.

In 1351, as the Black Death was reducing the labor pool, a mason could earn 107s/year; by 1390, that had risen to £8, or 160s!

A carpenter in 1300 could make 53s/year. By 1351 (Black Death killing off workers!), that had risen to 80s/year, and a master carpenter could earn 107s. A little later, in 1400, the carpenter's apprentice would be worth 40s/year.

While the carpenter might be hired to help build a house, the thatcher might be needed for the roof. Collecting sufficient reeds, binding them, making them secure so that the roof is thick enough to keep out inclement weather and secure enough that high winds don't destroy it—these arduous and skilled tasks probably explain why the thatcher in 1390 could make £6/year, or 113s!

Of course, building a house took a lot more than one's savings. A two-story cottage in the early 1300s could cost £2, four times what the swineherd makes. A house with several rooms could cost £10-15! So what did the typical person/family do to afford it? Why, get a mortgage, of course. Did mortgages work the same way they do now? Let's find out tomorrow.

The Medieval Sourcebook has a lot of pricing information ranging from the 11th to 15th centuries, if you'd like to explore further.

The Cost of Things

When I taught high school English Literature, students were aghast at the small sums (a few hundred pounds) that a successful poet might have to live on. They had a difficult time grasping not only that prices were much lower, but also that the Age of Reason household did not use expensive machines for washing, cooking, preserving foods, calling friends, watching or hearing entertainment, etc.

I've tackled this topic at least once before, but mostly focused on food prices. Let us look at some other economic data. First, however, we have to know the currency:

1 pound (L) = 20 shillings (s)
1 shilling = 12 pence (d)
1 pence (penny) = 4 farthings

Additionally, 1 crown was only 5 shillings, and 1 mark = 13 shillings and 4 pence

The L, s, d symbols are from French Livre, sou, and denier, which are in turn from Latin liber, solidus, and denarius.

Now let's get dressed in the 1300s:

A fashionable gown (for upper class) could cost as much as 10 pounds.
A simple tunic for a working class man could cost 3-4 shillings
A landless serf's tunic anywhere from 1-6 pence
Highest quality wool for making clothes was 5 shillings/yard in 1380
If you wanted silk, it was 10-12 shillings/yard (but more easily available a century later)
(A loose-fitting tunic required 2.5 yards; a doublet (a lined tunic, so "doubled" fabric) needed 4 yards
Shoes and boots could be 4 to 6 pence
Accessorize with a hat (10 pence to 14 pence) and a purse (1.5 pence), and you were ready to hit the town

How affordable were these? Tomorrow we will look at what people earned in different professions.

The Golden Coin

Let us talk about coinage, specifically the solidus. Its plural was solidi; also known as the bezant (named for Byzantium, the earlier name of Constantinople, now Istanbul), and sometimes simply as nomisma, Greek for "coin."

It was introduced by our old friend Emperor Constantine the Great. He designed a gold coin weighing 4.45 grams. (As of this writing, gold is worth US$59.54/gram.) That weight stayed consistent from Constantine's time (early 300s) right up to the 1030s, after which Byzantine emperors started to make it with less gold because of a suffering economy due to military and civil problems. By the time of Alexios I it was being made with very little gold. Alexios eliminated the solidus in 1092, replacing it with the hyperpyron nomisma ("super-refined coin").

This hyperpyron was the same weight, though of slightly less purity because the debased solidi were recalled and melted down with gold to make the new coin. This coin was the standard until the mid-14th century, although it also suffered from succeeding emperors using less and less gold in it.

What was it "worth" in terms of buying power? Well, prices fluctuate over time and place, of course, and the day-to-day need for and value of goods is very different from how we live today. In Constantine's time, for instance, the average Roman would consume two pounds of wheat bread daily. In 320 CE a loaf of wheat bread could sell for two nummi (a silver coin, later made of copper or bronze). An early (pure gold) solidus at one time was worth 7200 nummi. A Roman cavalryman made 180 nummi per day. A solidus would be worth a month and a half salary for him. There's also a little more insight from this old post.

Next time, let's look at some prices closer to our time.

Deeds of the Franks

Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (Latin: "Deeds of the Franks and the other pilgrims to Jerusalem"), also known simply as Gesta Francorum (you can figure it out), is an account of the First Crusade, from the viewpoint of an anonymous member of the group following Bohemund of Taranto who later joined Raymond of Toulouse. This account gives us many details not always available elsewhere.

As well as accounts of some specific sieges and battles, there are details of some of the more mundane trials and tribulations. One anecdote is about the arrival of the "People's Crusade" led by Peter the Hermit, who departed early with a band of common people and families:

The Emperor had ordered such a market as was in the city to be given to these people. And he said to them, "Do not cross the Strait until the chief host of the Chritians has come, for you are not so strong that you can do battle with the Turks." The Christians conducted themselves badly, inasmuch as they tore down and burned buildings of the city and carried off the lead with which the churches were constructed sold it to the Greeks. The Emperor was enraged thereat and ordered them to cross the Strait. After they bad crossed, they did not cease doing all manner of evil, burning and plundering houses and churches.

Ultimately, these pre-crusaders were destroyed by the Turks. Part of their problem was not being wealthy enough to provision themselves, and winding up in a land where they had no access to resources. Locals, knowing their great need, were quick to take economic advantage:

When the Armenians and Syrians, however, saw that our men were returning utterly empty-handed, they counselled together and went away through the mountains and places of which they had previous knowledge, making subtle inquiry and buying grain and other bodily sustenance. This they brought to the camp, in which hunger was great beyond measure, and they sold a single assload for eight perpre, which is worth one hundred and twenty solidi of denarii. There, indeed, many of our men died because they did not have the means wherewith to buy at such a dear price.

Crusading was not an easy undertaking. Strange lands, no support,y chain, constantly being attacked (or attacking); it is astounding that they managed to accomplish any of their goals.

It occurs to me that readers of this blog will have no modern point of reference for a solidi, so I think it's time to talk about money next.

Guibert of Nogent

Guibert of Nogent, a Benedictine  was not remarkable in his time, but his extensive writings and autobiography have more recently provided insight into daily life in the Middle Ages.

Born c.1055 to minor nobility, his was a breech birth. His family made an offering to the Virgin Mary the he would be dedicated to a religious life if he survived. Guibert's father (according to his autobiography) was violent man who died while Guibert was still young. Guibert believed his father would have broken the vow and would have tried to get Guibert to become a knight.

At the age of 12, after six years of a strict tutor for the boy, his mother retired to an abbey near saint-Germer-de-Fly. Soon after, Guibert entered the Order of Saint-Germer, studying classical works. The influence of Anselm of Bec inspired him to change his focus to theology.

The first major literary work of his was the Dei gesta per Francos ("God's deeds through the Franks"). It is a more polished version of the anonymous Gesta Francorum. His additions give us more information about the reaction to the Crusade in France.

His autobiography is also patterned after another work, the Confessions of St. Augustine. It is a lengthy work dealing with his youth and upbringing and his life in a monastery. There are references that give us insight into daily life, such as when he denigrates someone for their manner of dress:

But because there are no good things, that do not at times give occasion to some wickedness, when he was one day in a village engaged on some business or other, behold there stood before him a man in a scarlet cloak and silken hose that had the soles cut away in a damnable fashion, with hair effeminately parted in front and sweeping the tops of his shoulders looking more like a lover than a traveller.

Guibert's criticisms tell us something about attitude toward certain fashions. 

He had a skeptical view on saints:

I have indeed seen, and blush to relate, how a common boy, nearly related to a certain most renowned abbot, and squire (it was said) to some knight, died in a village hard by Beauvais .on Good Friday, two days before Easter. Then, for the sake of that sacred day whereon he had died, men began to impute a gratuitous sanctity to the dead boy. When this had been rumoured among the country-folk, all agape for something new, then forthwith oblations and waxen tapers were brought to his tomb by the villagers of all that country round. What need of more words? A monument was built over him, the pot was hedged in with a stone building, and from the very confines of Brittany there came great companies of country-folk, though without admixture of the higher sort. That most wise abbot with his religious monks, seeing this, and being enticed by the multitude of gifts that were brought, suffered the fabrication of false miracles. [Treatise on Relics]

...and on saints' relics:

Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, eagerly desired the body of St Exuperius, his predecessor, who was honoured with special worship in the town of Corbeil. He paid, therefore, the sum of one hundred pounds to the sacristan of the church which possessed these relics that he might take them for himself. But the sacristan cunningly dug up the bones of a peasant named Exuperius and brought them to the Bishop. The Bishop, not content with assertion, exacted from him an oath that these bones brought were those of Saint Exuperius. "I swear," replied the man, "that these are the bones of Exuperius: as to his sanctity I cannot swear, since many earn the title of saints are far indeed from holiness." [Treatise on Relics]

He died in 1124.

Speaking of deeds of the Franks, there should be some interesting items to glean from the aforementioned Gesta Francorum. Stay tuned.

Other Accounts of Clermont

How do we know what happened hundreds of years ago? Sometimes we have an archaeological finds that are subject to interpretation. Sometimes we have direct records, like coroner reports or exchequer accounts that we assume are straightforward. Sometimes we have histories written by contemporaries, or eyewitnesses, but even those we have to look at with a critical eye. Did the author have an agenda? Did the author have an accurate memory of the event? Did the author know how to interpret events?

For example: what did Urban actually say at Clermont on 27 November 1095 to announce the (First) Crusade? Six accounts have survived.

First, we have a letter Urban himself sent to Flanders. He says "a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient" (because he has had a request from the emperor in Constantinople for help with the Turks) and makes a passing reference to Jerusalem by saying the barbarism has "even grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection." Interestingly, there is no indication that this Crusade has as its main purpose taking over Jerusalem from non-Christians.

There is also the Gesta Francorum ("Deeds of the Franks"), an anonymous history written only a few years after 1095, that simply says Urban called upon people to "take up the way of the Lord" and be prepared to suffer in the undertaking. This account suggests that Urban was calling on the Franks specifically for this task, and caused the Franks to sew crosses onto the right shoulders of their garments to indicate their willingness.

Two eyewitness accounts exist. Fulcher of Chartres was a chaplain whose detailed account of the Council of Clermont (in the week preceding the announcement) gives an account in which he claims to record only things that he saw with his own eyes. He is the best (we think) account of what Urban actually said.

Robert the Monk is the other account. Robert says he was an eyewitness to Urban's speech, and he may have been: Robert has been identified as a former abbot of Saint-Remi who lived from c.1055 - 1122. Writing more than ten years after the speech, he embellishes it (compared to Fulcher's version) and makes it more dramatic. It is Robert who claims that the crowds as one shouted Deus vult ("God wills it!") at the conclusion of the announcement.

Two more accounts that do not claim to have been present exist. Guibert, the abbot of Nogent, adds his own emphasis on returning Jerusalem to Christian possession to fulfill prophecies about the Apocalypse. Baldric, the archbishop of Dol, seems to re-write the account from the Gesta Francorum and emphasize the Crusade as an appeal to chivalry. Part of Urban's focus during the Council was to reign in violence caused by Christian knights in the West.

We take what we can get from the historical record and hope we can assemble the jigsaw puzzle of historical events.

Tomorrow I'll tell you a little more about Guibert of Nogent and his very "modern" skepticism about something that scholarship definitely agrees with, no matter what people in the Middle Ages believed.

Godfrey of Bouillon

Godfrey (c.1060 - 18 July, 1100) was the second son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and therefore was not in line for much inheritance. His godfather, however, was Godfrey the Hunchback, Duke of Lower Lorraine. The Duke had no children, and named Godfrey his heir. The old Duke died in 1076, leaving Godfrey the duchy--if he could keep it.

Lower Lorraine was an important buffer between France and Germany, but that made it important to a lot of people. In 1076, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (of the Investiture Controversy) wanted there Lower Lorraine for his son, confiscating it and leaving Godfrey with Bouillon and the land around the cities of Antwerp and Breda. Godfrey's land was also being nibbled at by his aunt Matilda of Tuscany, his cousin Albert III of Namur, and a couple others. His brothers, Eustace and Baldwin, supported him, and eventually he won the Lower Lorraine back by 1087.

Having a larger territory made it possible to gather a larger force to join the First Crusade, which set off in August 1096. Godfrey mortgaged his estates to the bishops of Liège and Verdun, and he and his brothers led a group of 40,000 overland to Constantinople.

"Crusade fever" sparked a new wave of antisemitism. While passing through Mainz, word went out that Godfrey had vowed to avenge the Crucifixion by eliminating all Jews. Emperor Henry prohibited this, and one report (written 50 years later) says Godfrey relented after the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne each paid him 500 marks (1 mark=8 ounces of either gold or silver).

The army reached Jerusalem in June 1099 (after many other events and encounters). On 14-15 July, they got over the walls using siege towers made from lumber from Italian ships, intentionally dismantled for the purpose. Godfrey was one of the first to enter the city. They had left home three years earlier, but they had set foot in Jerusalem (after conquering other towns along the way), and could claim success.

The next step was to determine how to rule the new Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey was chosen to rule (after Raymond of Toulouse, the oldest and most experienced warrior of the Crusade had turned it down), and chose to be Calle Defender of the Holy Sepulchre rather than king. Among other acts, Godfrey endowed the Jerusalem hospital.

What we know of the Crusades comes to us from various chronicles. They do not always agree, and their general reliability must always be examined very carefully. Tomorrow we'll look at a couple accounts of the First Crusade.

The First Crusade Commences

It can be argued that the First Crusade, announced in 1095, could not or would not feasibly have been undertaken much earlier than the end of the 11th century. A few different trends combined at the right time.

One was that the political power of Western Europe had recently grown; kingdoms were becoming more sophisticated with fewer border squabbles, and the church and the secular powers had the organizational ability to manage a large undertaking. Also, there was an eschatological air ever since the year 1000, and the end of the world could be nigh, sparking a religious fervor not previously seen. The end of the world in Biblical terms involved Jerusalem, and so freeing Jerusalem from infidels was important. A request from Alexius I Comnenus of Constantinople to get help from the West with his infidel problems was a catalyst for Urban II to declare this undertaking.

Assembling armies takes time, however, and joining the Crusade was expensive. There was no large standing army in any country capable of taking on such a huge military operation, so citizens from all walks of life were recruited. The prospect of a plenary indulgence from the pope that would remove the need for penance was a strong inducement to join. Individuals sold goods and sought donations to be able to afford food, armor, weapons, passage, etc.

The main forces (there were four major organized groups) were ready to depart Europe in August 1096. A fifth and smaller force led by the King of France's brother, Hugh of Vermandois, left early and was shipwrecked in the Adriatic. (There was also an impatient "People's Crusade" that left early and, well, see the result here.)

The major group was led by Godfrey of Bouillon (1060 - 1100), the duke of Lower Lorraine. Much of the story of the First Crusade relies on his actions. We can look at how the Crusade went through the point of view of the first European "King of Jerusalem" next time.

[map source]

The First Crusade Announced

Christianity in the Middle Ages did not approve of Islam and its swift growth. It was not many years after the death of Muhammad in 632 CE that the Islamic occupation of Jerusalem was established in 638. Even though Jews and Christians were allowed in the city, and a treaty was signed between the caliph and the Patriarch of Jerusalem guaranteeing protection of Christian holy places, Western Europe and the papacy saw Jerusalem as a problem to solve.

Pope Urban II decided it was important to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule, and to that end he announced there would be a special gathering at Clermont in France in 1095. Clermont was the site of a couple religious councils. He was holding one on 18 November, 1095. Urban had received a request for aid from Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus against the Muslim Turks

On 27 November he spoke from a wooden platform to a crowd of thousands of the faithful that had gathered. On each of four sides of the platform were men with leather conical "megaphones" who repeated his words so that they could reach as far as possible to the crowds. (I have read this in the past, but cannot now find a reference for it, so take it as literary license for now.)

In short, he called all Christians to join in a war against the Muslims to free the Holy Land. This would also be an important pilgrimage for any involved, and would include a plenary indulgence (a remission of all penance for sins) to those who partook. When Urban finished his announcement, he concluded Deus vult! (Latin for "God wills it.") The crowd erupted, repeating his Deus vult.

The result of all this? We'll see tomorrow whether they succeeded.

What Did Horseshoes Look Like?

The figure to the left is a horseshoe; or rather, it is a hipposandal. This was the Classical Roman method of "shoeing" a horse. Nails were not involved; a leather strap went around the hook in back and tied through the ring in front. It was sturdy for the cobbled stone roads for which Rome was famous, and could be easily removed when no longer needed and fitted to another horse. The suggestion that the Romans brought circular horseshoes to Britain during their occupation, and that the existence of extra horseshoes led to the pastime of throwing them onto a stake, inventing the game of quoits, seems suddenly less likely.

So when did the horseshoe that was shaped like a ... well, a horseshoe, come into being? You could buy A History of Horseshoes, or read on.

One fact to start with: iron was a valuable material: if an iron object got old and worn, it was likely reforged into something new, so old iron horseshoes were not likely to be found in the archaeological evidence. So far as we can tell, references to shod horses in the classical era may be to the hipposandal seen above. References to shoes that are nailed into a hoof don't appear until about 900 CE, which doesn't mean they didn't exist earlier. An 1829 work by Bracy Clark with the wonderful title Hippodonomia, or The True Structure, Laws, and Economy, of the Horse's Foot tells us there is a reference to "crescent figured irons and their nails" in 910.

Encyclopedia Britannica's entry "Horseshoe" mentions a horseshoe with nails found in the tomb of Childeric I (c.437 - 481), King of the Franks. So it appears that at least part of the medieval world used such horseshoes by the 5th century. We will never know who invented the shape that needed to be nailed on.

Around 1000, horseshoes cast from bronze were known, and by the time of the First Crusade (1096), horseshoes were common. They were valuable enough to be a substitute for money when paying taxes. By the 13th century in Western Europe, horses and their needs were so common that there was mass-production of horseshoes by blacksmiths. The Worshipful Company of Farriers was founded in 1356, one of the Livery Companies (trade associations) in the City of London. The name Farrier comes from Middle French for blacksmith, ferrier, from Latin ferrum, "iron."

To my surprise, when I searched my blog for the "First Crusade" to provide a link to its mention above, I discovered two references to someone being away on it, but no explanation of it or why a Crusade was started at all. Looks like I have some explaining to do...

Quoits

The idea that quoits—a game in which players toss rings at a stake, hoping to encircle it—originated with the "Greek or Roman discus" does not seem to me to hold up. The discus was flung for distance; quoits is a game of accuracy. The fact that each is circular is not sufficient to link the two historically.

Those who subscribe to the Greco-Roman origin use it as a basis for quoits coming to Britain during the Roman occupation. The game of quoits ("coiting") in England during the reign of Edward III, and again during the reign of his successor, Richard II, was outlawed in favor of pastimes such as archery, which would translate to readiness in battle. This was duplicated in the Statutes of Kilkenny (see here and here) by Edward's son, Lionel of Antwerp, in his rôle as viceroy of Ireland.

(Ironically, quoits was referred to as "manly and healthy amusements" in 1836 in a Washington, DC, advertisement for the available amusements at a nearby coffee house.)

The similarity between quoits and the game of horseshoes suggests that the game might have started with people idling their time by throwing spare horseshoes at a stake or peg. That assumes, however, that "horse shoes" in the past were the ring- or U-shaped pieces of metal they are now.

And that is something worth looking into in more detail.

Irish Apartheid

The Statutes of Kilkenny, established in 1366 by Prince Lionel of Antwerp, were designed to keep Irish and English peoples and cultures so distinct from each other that I think it is fair to compare it to Apartheid.

Not only did they forbid English from adopting any Irish customs, manner of dress, language, or names; not only did they forbid Englishmen from riding horses in the Irish manner, and forbid intermarriage and even friendships, they even...

Forbade playing Irish sports:

VI. Also, whereas a land, which is at war, requires that every person do render himself able to defend himself, it is ordained, and established, that the common [people] ... do not, henceforth, use the plays which men call hurlings*, with great sticks and a ball upon the ground, ..., and other plays which men call coiting**; but that they do apply and accustom themselves to use and draw bows, and throw lances, and other gentlemanlike games, whereby the Irish enemies may be the better checked by the liege people and commons of these parts; and if any do or practise the contrary, and of this be attainted, they shall be taken and imprisoned, and fined at the will of our lord the king.

Forbade allowing Irish to become priests or monks: 

XIV. Also, it is ordained and established that no religious house which is situate amongst the English be it exempt or not, shall henceforth receive any Irishmen to their profession, but may receive Englishmen without taking into consideration whether they be born in England or in Ireland;

Forbade Irish entertainment, lest they be spies in disguise: 

XV. Also, whereas the Irish agents who come amongst the English, spy out the secrets, plans, and policies of the English, whereby great evils have often resulted; it is agreed and forbidden, that any Irish agents, that is to say, pipers, story-tellers, babblers, rimers, mowers, nor any other Irish agent shall come amongst the English, and that no English shall receive or make gift to such;  

These and others created a line between the English and Irish that could not be crossed. Punishments of fines or imprisonment were severe. An Irishman who pastured his livestock on English-owned land could have his livestock seized.

Lionel did not have enough men to enforce these statutes; also, he left Ireland a year later to get married in Italy, and never returned. They did, however, help to keep the English and Irish at odds with each other for centuries.

Next: what about that "coiting"?

*"hurlings" as described clearly refers to the sport of hurling, still played today.
**"coiting" likely refers to quoits; Edward III had banned quoits in England in 1365 and urged the practice of archery instead. Even with the signing of the Treaty of Brétigny which (so far as anyone knew) ended the Hundred Years War, Edward still wanted the country prepared to go to war. In fact, he was planning to make Lionel King of Scotland, and that would require soldiers.