The proclamation of an expedition did not mean that all town militias in a particular kingdom would automatically hasten to the king's side to render service. The size of such an army would have been quite large and its management unwieldy. Normally the king sent the notification of his undertaking to the municipalities near his line of march or in the general area he planned to campaign. This both reduced to a minimum the amount of time any given town would be required to keep its militia in the field and decreased the royal campaign costs. Since militias came great distances to render service, while others limited themselves to activity within their own territory, and yet others received extra pay for going beyond predetermined limits, royal planning had to take into account the obligations and exemptions of the many possible municipal armies which the king might draw upon for any given campaign.

Moreover, the towns contended with their own military problems at the local level. Were they going to muster the entire militia for every type of combat, large or small, distant or near? When it came to royal or noble expeditions, the hueste-fonsado involved the possibility of profit and loss. Positive aspects of royal service included the opportunity to acquire spoils, the chance to vanquish a town's own troublesome enemy, and the possibility for the caballero class to demonstrate their prowess on the battlefield. On the negative side, military service disrupted civil and economic life while forcing the municipality to assume extraordinary precautions for its own defense. For those townsmen not well versed in the art of war, military service could be a most unpleasant task. As the Reconquest [113] progressed, therefore, limitations on and exemptions from royal military service were increasingly sought and obtained. While the northern monarchies might seem to have been pursuing a contradictory policy of recruiting settlers for hostile frontiers only to exempt them from service upon arrival at their strategic locations, the contradiction was more apparent than real. Exemptions and limitations applied more to offensive warfare than to defensive endeavors, which mandated a response from the towns and failures to serve were vigorously fined. Thus the towns wanted to avoid being victimized by overly expansive policies for which they would have to provide much of the manpower by limiting their service requirements in offensive warfare.⁽¹⁾

The kings, however, hoped for offensive military service, and so the exemptions and limitations often proved temporary in nature, and required royal acceptance of the type of restriction being sought. Adding to this consideration was the progressive depletion during the twelfth century of the Asturo-Cantabrian and Pyrenean population bases which supplied the resettlement of the Duero-Douro, Tajo-Tejo and upper Ebro Valleys in the north. While this scarcity could occasionally be replenished by intermittent infusions of colonists and crusaders from beyond the Pyrenees, the royal desire for continued frontier expansion would necessitate increasing efforts to make life in these towns more attractive by lightening their military obligations. Thus in the fueros of the later Reconquest limitations and exemptions multiplied. The right of exemption from service was an important element insulating the townsmen from the burdens of war. Yet the kings had to be concerned, lest the exemptions and limitations so debilitate their potential forces as to negate the possibility of municipal participation entirely.⁽²⁾ In this way, the monarchy maintained a delicate balance between the exemptions and limitations which made life on the military frontier more attractive and endurable, and the need for sufficient numbers which made the towns viable military assets. Many towns received freedom from both the obligation to render military service and the tax levied in lieu of service.⁽³⁾ In addition, as the longer fueros of the later Reconquest make their appearance, both limitations and exemptions multiply in variety and become increasingly involved with the provision of weapons and equipment. This chapter will separate these elements of limitation, exemption and the contribution of arms, to observe their development and to calculate their effects on the evolution of the municipal militias.
 
 

Limitations, unlike exemptions which free individuals from service, deal with the residents of a town and its territories as a whole. [114] They prescribe conditions governing military service in such areas as frequency and duration of campaigns, territorial boundaries of municipal expeditions, restrictions concerning the identification of the commander under which the militia will serve, and the size of the levy to be expected from the town. Limitations were directed at assuring that no one town would be overtaxed in its military duties. There was wide variation in the types and extent of limitations. Although in some situations the mere placement of a population in a strategic zone was sufficient to attain the royal objectives, more often townsmen had to render military aid in some form in order to be of any use to the king or local noble. The balance struck among these factors varied from period to period and place to place. Accordingly, if the charter grantor badly needed to populate a key town on a vital sector of the frontier, the limitations on service could be very liberal, even total. If the grantor had any leverage in the situation, he would strive for a more rigorous militia requirement.

The most frequently cited limitation required service only when the king himself was present to lead the campaign. This proviso first appeared in the last half of the eleventh century in a variety of charters from Galicia to Aragon.⁽⁴⁾ By the end of the twelfth century charters requiring the presence of the king prior to the activation of the militia were awarded in all of the Christian kingdoms. Interestingly enough, no such stipulations were laid down during the reign of Queen Urraca of Leon-Castile, at least in her name.⁽⁵⁾ During the thirteenth century, Portugal maintained the limitation of serving with the king only with greatest frequency, suggesting that the king and the towns had a mutual interest in delimiting service once the Portuguese frontier with Islam had closed.⁽⁶⁾ Scattered but numerically significant references also exist in the municipal charters of thirteenth-century Castile, as well as in the Fuero real and in the Espéculo. The Espéculo further suggests that individuals might have been interpreting the need of the king's presence over-zealously, arguing that the king in a given instance might be old, sick, badly wounded, or engaged on too many fronts to be present personally at all military assemblages under his sponsorship. On these occasions, the militiamen ought to render service.⁽⁷⁾ A number of charter designate officials who could substitute for the monarch such as a count, castellan, merino, señor, alcalde, bishop or master of a military order.⁽⁸⁾ Sometimes the king was not mentioned at all and only his agent, usually the señor, was noted as the leader for the military service muster.⁽⁹⁾ Notwithstanding the presence of the king, one finds a strong indication in the Cordilleran fueros of eastern Castile, Navarre and Aragon that actual combat (lid campal) is also to be anticipated, not some kind of informal muster without a specific military objective.⁽¹⁰⁾

The religious or political identification of the enemy as a specification in the obligation to do military service appears with comparative rarity in the charters, suggesting a pressing local or regional matter when it is in evidence. Nonetheless, it could be a factor. In Galicia a principle emerged in the reign of Fernando I by 1065 that musters dealing with Muslim forces (Mauros, Paganos) did not have the same time limitations on their service obligations as was the case with Christians, a law which reappears in the Portuguese forais of Anciães (1137-39) and Sintra (1154). At Portuguese Covellinas (1195), Aragonese Sarnés (1197), Navarrese Guipúzcoa (1200) and Castilian Ocaña (1210) the attack of the Sarraceni provided the only justification for calling up the militia. A foreign (but not necessarily Muslim) invader was specified in the Portuguese towns of Banho (1152), Atouguia (1185-1211) and Marmelar (1194), while Sancta Cruz (1225) noted the opponent had to be "mouros aut malos christianos." The Navarrese towns of Artajona (1193), Lárraga (1193), Mendigorría (1194) and Miranda de Arga (1208) suspended the normal one man per household levy for defensive expeditions and required everyone to make a maximum effort. The Portuguese town of Sabadelhe insisted on service solely against its own enemies. Royal endeavors were directed against such limitations, and the Fuero real in its Castilian and Portuguese versions sought to make equivalent service against both Muslims and against non-Muslims.⁽¹¹⁾

The frequency of mustering the militia and the duration of its service attracted more widespread concern. In some towns, especially those of Navarre and Aragon, settlers enjoyed exemption from military service for a period after settlement which varied from one to seven years.⁽¹²⁾ In Portugal, the question of frequency of service surfaces repeatedly. On occasion frequency was dependent on the presence of the king, the state of the emergency or the identity of the enemy. Where a frequency limitation appears a once-a-year clause is the customary proviso.⁽¹³⁾ The charters in King Fernando III's reign offer some interesting thirteenth-century examples of frequency of limitation. Seeking to bolster his forces for the assault on Andalusia, Fernando imposed in 1222 a strong demand for service upon Ávila, Uceda, Peñafiel and Madrid, four towns then rather well behind the frontier to assure that their militias would remain in a state of readiness; their charters required them to serve on royal fonsados outside the kingdom (i.e. against the Muslim south) once a year; inside the kingdom they were liable at any time the king wished service. In the grants of Fernando III and his son Alfonso X to the towns closer to the frontier, the time limitation receives mention only in its more familiar context of once a year for all campaign service.⁽¹⁴⁾

The charters also address the interesting question of the duration of the militia's military service. Here again, some limitation in time of military service must have been implicitly understood in all towns, although often not stated explicitly in the charter. Where the duration of service is specified, there are indications of regionalization in the evolution of the length of service, especially during the twelfth century. The earliest and most frequently cited time limitation for military service is one day, the militiamen departing from their homes and returning to them on the same day. This law occurs exclusively in Galicia and Portugal.⁽¹⁵⁾ Indeed, the one-day limit was the only one ever cited in Portugal, save at Cernancelhe in 1124 and Sabadelhe in 1220, where a three-day limit was set. This would explain the difficulty experienced by Bishop Diego Gelmírez in mustering the Santiago militia for the 1120 campaigns against Portugal, where he apparently had to pay them to secure the additional service time necessary.⁽¹⁶⁾ The Kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon also produced a frequently-cited service time limit of three days, which was often expressed by requiring the militiamen to bring bread for three days (i.e. carry supplies sufficient to feed themselves for that period). Possibly the kings of Aragon and Navarre fed their recruits beyond that time, but more likely that was the understood limit for campaigning in the field. Four Leonese-Castilian towns (Sahagún, Burgos, Oviedo and Avilés) also note a three-day limit in their charters between 1084 and 1155, but the statements of the obligation made no note of supplies.⁽¹⁷⁾

During the central twelfth century a press towards lengthening this requirement emerges, especially in Leon and Castile. The chronicles of Alfonso VII and of Ávila, for example, discuss long expeditions undertaken by the towns of the Trans-Duero and the Tajo Valley (see Chapters One and Two) in which both mounted and foot soldiers participated which would have been impossible if a three-day limit were in force. Alfonso VII did establish a distinction between three-day local defense and castle service as against a three-month expeditionary requirement, but this was done for special nobles both honored and supplied by the king ("...illos seniores qui tenent illas honores regales...."). Alfonso I of Aragon had granted many of these same privileges to the settlers of the newly captured Zaragoza in 1119, but distinguished between the regal nobility who had the expeditionary obligation and the remainder of the settlers who had only the three-day requirement.⁽¹⁸⁾ The chronicles suggest that the militia in general acquired a longer expeditionary obligation during his reign, at least in such well-traveled militias as Ávila, [117] Segovia, Salamanca, Toledo and Talavera. The fueros unfortunately do not enlighten us very far regarding the precise timing of this evolution.

One early development occurs in 1166 when Alfonso VIII granted Olmos Castle to Segovia in exchange for two months' military service performed by the Concejo at his pleasure.⁽¹⁹⁾ By the thirteenth century the longer requirement had become widespread, listed at one month at Cáceres, Usagre and Cartagena, two to three months at San Justo, Brihuega and Talamanca, and three months at Plasencia, Torre de Tiedar, Seville and Sepúlveda. We even get our first indication that the requirement has become extended in Aragon and Catalonia. Jaime I called on Zaragozan assistance to put down some rebellious Catalan nobles in 1274, and required them to bring "bread for three months." A series of general musters on a far larger scale issued by Jaime and his son Pedro II (Pere I) for many Catalan towns in 1275-76 and 1285 require the militias to come equipped and with bread for two, three and even four months, indicating that Castilian and Aragon-Catalan practice had remained parallel down to the later thirteenth century.⁽²⁰⁾ While Jaume did offer salaries and supplies for three months to the thousand knights and five thousand infantry who were to accompany his son Prince Pedro in a campaign to assist Alfonso X of Castile against the Muslims in November of 1275, no specific citation of municipal forces are listed for this expedition and all of my examples in Aragon-Catalonia where supplies are mentioned require townsmen to supply themselves.⁽²¹⁾

The towns took these limitations seriously; for example, in Fernando III's siege of Úbeda in 1233, the militias of Toro, Zamora, Salamanca and Ledesma departed before the city fell because their service terms had expired. Thus, Fernando took care to rotate the summoning of his militias over time for the siege of Córdoba three years later. Alfonso X's Espéculo also adopts a three-month obligation for the municipal militias. The monarch and the towns are supposed to work out the question of the mutual cost of supplies, as against the relative shares of booty, and the term is supposedly calculated from the arrival time of the militia at the place where the ruler has his assembly. Early departure constituted the equivalent violation to no service at all. One wonders how acceptable these concepts expressed in the Espéculo were to the militias, and how effective they ever became.⁽²²⁾

Related to time of service is the question of distance from home which a militia could be asked to serve. When royal pressure increased on the towns for extended terms of service, they sought a counter-limitation [118] by securing a geographical restriction to the vicinity of their town or their frontera for the performance of service.⁽²³⁾ A number of municipalities attempted to describe the territorial limits of their service obligation by listing the geographic boundaries beyond which they could not be compelled to go. The forais of S. Martha e Beduido and Souto specify service on their side of the Douro River (20 to 40 kilometers), and a large majority of the Cidadêlhe family add the Minho River to the Douro as the region of operations (a zone approximately 100 by 150 kilometers). In the case of Arcos de la Frontera in 1268, the Guadalquivir River constituted the northern limit of military service (50 to 80 kilometers).⁽²⁴⁾ Indeed, the growth of this tendency in the later twelfth century may have prompted Fernando III to specify one expedition outside the kingdom in the fueros which he gave to Ávila, Uceda, Peñafiel and Madrid in 1222. The regular use of the municipal militias in the thirteenth-century Andalusian campaigns indicates that such a rule was applied with some consistency by the monarchy.⁽²⁵⁾ The only specific scale of distance offered on the national level occurs in Castile, in that part of the Espéculo which deals with the proper response to an enemy invasion. Here Alfonso X's jurists argue that anyone (including municipal militias) within a radius of one hundred migeros (c. 180 kilometers) of an incursion site ought to respond spontaneously to the needs of the kingdom. Although we cannot know to what extent this theory was based upon actual experience and expectation, certainly it offers a reasonable estimate of the potential of a militia range if not an operational certainty.⁽²⁶⁾ On the other hand, a number of towns specified political and human geography to demarcate their horizon of liability.⁽²⁷⁾

The last category of limitation is the partial muster, in which a predetermined fraction of the vecinos could be summoned to render military service, preventing the load from descending too often on the same individuals while assuring that a reserve force of combatants would be available if an enemy approached the town in the absence of the militia. The first reference to this practice occurs at Peñafiel in 942, but the reference to keeping a third part of the foot soldiers in the town should the "Mauris" approach is of questionable authenticity in a charter surviving only in a late copy. The 1104 Fuero deFresnillo, also extant in a late copy, begins a lively twelfth century tradition for this law, when it demands that one-third of the caballeros join the royal fonsado when called, and charging members of that third a fee if they do not attend.⁽²⁸⁾ The emergence of this law may be tied to the now lost Fuero de Salamanca (see [119] Chapter One). Between 1121 and 1135 the one-third levy appeared in the charters of a number of towns in Navarre, Aragon, Castile and Portugal, then in two later Castilian citations at Uclés (1179) and Zorita de los Canes (1180). The Numão-Trancoso family in Portugal maintains the provision throughout the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries.⁽²⁹⁾ In a virtually contemporary development, a similar ratio law which specified that two-thirds of the knights should serve and one-third remain in the town could be found in the 1137 fuero given by Alfonso VII to Guadalajara, possibly derived from a no longer extant charter given to Ávila (see Chapter One). Later in the century the Portuguese family of Évora borrowed the Ávila format, causing versions of this provision to appear in some forty charters across the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Campomayor in Leonese Extremadura, also possibly a derivative of Ávila, has the provision included in 1260. In the early thirteenth-century version of the fuero of Viguera and Val de Funes, ratios of two-thirds of the knights and one-third of the footsoldiers serving are listed. Only Viguera tells us that those who serve in the partial muster were selected by drawing lots. A resident who was not drawn and who wished to serve could petition his fellow residents for permission join the expedition. Probably this was the system employed everywhere.⁽³⁰⁾

In addition to demonstrating how rapidly a law could spread across the frontier kingdoms in Iberia, the emergence of a partial muster law across so wide a front within a decade suggests that the kings of Aragon and Leon-Castile and the Count of Portugal had just begun to put heavy pressure on their municipalities for expeditionary military service. The load this placed on the townsmen doubtless helped create laws which distributed the service tasks. Another concern to be met was the comparative defenselessness of towns which had given their militias up for a royal expedition. Since Muslim forces similarly raided the towns and countryside, especially to discourage a major Christian expedition bent upon a particular campaign or siege, the towns were highly vulnerable with their militias away in the field. Maintaining in each town a reserve at least capable of the defense of its walls and the harassing of unwanted visitors must have been a felt need. The Chronicle of Ávila offers two interesting situations which pertain to this problem. One appears in the very early and near legendary portion of the Chronicle and relates an incident where the militia was away on a raid (cabalgada) when the town was attacked by the Muslims. Some of the rural knights combined with a residual force from the town to overtake the Moorish raiders and defeat them. The second example describes an assault by the neighboring Christian [120] militias of Salamanca and Alba de Tormes while the main Abulense militia was engaged in the Las Navas campaign in 1212. The Abulense reserve drove off the Salamancans and their allies, again demonstrating the value of a partial muster.⁽³¹⁾ One finds other ratios of muster such as one-half, two-thirds, one-quarter, three-eighths and nine-tenths, but these are more scattered and unsystematic in their distribution. Presumably each locale worked out for itself the best it could regarding service ratios.⁽³²⁾

Two other laws eased the burden of the entire community to serve. One was the obligation that only one person per household rendered military service on any given occasion. This rule was established indirectly by the substitution concept in the Cuenca-Teruel, Coria Cima-Coa and Santarém families of charters, and by direct statement in several Navarrese fueros by the later twelfth century.⁽³³⁾ Another method required a simple numerical levy of the town which was drawn from the knightly class. Unfortunately, numerical levies rarely appear in the charters, hindering our ability to estimate the forces the average militia could field. In the families of charters, the Santarém group initiated in 1179 in Portugal does present numerical levies of sixty knights for the mounted foray called caualgada, while on the other side of the peninsula Alfonso II of Aragon established numerical levies for the cavalcada in his southern French dominions near Nice in 1176. The Catalan carta puebla of Pinell in 1198 also levies ten knights for the cavalcadas exercitus. In connection with the Santarém levy of sixty militum, The Chronicle of Afonso I of Portugal mentions the outstanding performance of sixty knights from Santarém which he levied for a battle at Alcácer in 1147.⁽³⁴⁾ The evidence is insufficient for any kind of valid sample of militia size, and is equally uncertain as an effective delimiter of service without any indication of the size of the towns in question. Even in the twenty-two members of the Santarém family, the individual towns must have varied considerably in size despite the almost constant levy of sixty.

The effectiveness of these limitations in lessening military encumbrances upon the townsmen is difficult to assess since no limitation appears in all charters of any kingdom. Rather, we are left with the impression that each form of limitation served as a localized point of negotiation between ruler and municipality instead of any principle of national policy universally applied in the Reconquest. The closest any ruler came to attempting such unification of policy arose in the pattern of charters issued by Alfonso X, and even his pursuit of the goal of uniformity proved inconsistent. Ultimately, the town sought the best package of limitations it could from a king, framed [121] within the restraints of their strategic position and the king's political, military and economic requirements.

Exemptions gave to the individual what limitations gave collectively to the town, an opportunity to be free of military service under certain conditions. In general, they played a much larger role than limitations in alleviating the burden of warfare on the citizen. Exemptions exist in a variety of forms dating from the early Reconquest. This widespread incidence made them more important in the freeing of men from service than the town's corporate limitations.

The earliest and most basic form of exemption consisted in paying money in lieu of service, a stipend customarily called fossateria in Latin and fonsadera in the vernacular. It could be argued to have been a tax or equally a fine. In any case the large majority of the charters appear to leave the option of service or payment to the individual, although there are occasional indications that the kings wished to have some control over which type of service an individual rendered. In some campaigns funds to finance the king's forces were more important than additional troops, even to the extent of fining militias which attempted to join his forces unbidden.⁽³⁵⁾ In all probability, no single form of exemption freed more individuals from military service in all of the peninsular Christian kingdoms than this fee. As fine or punishment the fonsadera will be examined more extensively in Chapter Eight.

Some secured exemption on the basis of their occupations. There were large categorical grants of exemption, for example, the footsoldier class was freed from offensive expeditions in the Numão and Évora families. More specialized exemptions went to the cathedral workers in Santiago in 1131, the French merchants of Toledo in 1136, the wine makers and bakers of Zaragoza in 1137, the tenant farmers and the smiths who make at least fifteen plowshares in the Coria Cima-Coa charters, the grain and grapevine guards in thirteenth-century Parga, Oviedo and Avilés, the vineyard workers in Navarrese Urroz in 1237, and the armorers, gilders and bridle makers of Toro in 1260.⁽³⁶⁾ In the occupational category, the clergy held a special place. At the national level, at least in Leon-Castile, a strong sense existed that bishops and archbishops ought to render military service at royal command, notwithstanding considerable episcopal resistance to the concept. ⁽³⁷⁾ At the municipal level, [122] clergy often possessed exemption from military service and the fee in lieu of service. Alfonso VII defended this type of exemption on the grounds that they rendered a special spiritual service through ordination which paralleled military service and thus obviated it. The charter of Molina de Aragón demurred on the payment exemption should the cleric have a son or nephew in his household who was capable of military service, a curious statement a century after the reform papacy had launched its assault on clerical celibacy. On the other hand, Sanabria's clergy was obliged to send two of its number to act as chaplains during the fonsado campaign, a practice probably frequently used among the municipalities.⁽³⁸⁾

Women often possessed explicit exemption from military service. Where no such statement appears in charters, we can assume that these exemptions operated, for no references to females serving in municipal warfare exist, and the societal structure of the Reconquest towns would certainly not have encouraged that service.⁽³⁹⁾ However, once a woman married and became a part of a taxable household, problems arose if she became widowed since the military levy was usually taken on the basis of the household and women did not serve in the militia. Many town councils resolved the dilemma by formally exempting widows from either taxes or service.⁽⁴⁰⁾ A number of towns insisted that widows were liable for the fonsadera tax if they had a son in their household of military service age, unless he served with the militia. Presumably, at such time as a male child came of age, his obligation to serve would be balanced by his acquisition of his full inheritance and his status as new householder.⁽⁴¹⁾

Age was similarly a major consideration in the obligation to serve. The concept of exempting the young and the elderly from military service begins to appear in the charters in the early twelfth century, possibly as a response to the increase in pressures on the towns generated by the acquisition of the Tajo Valley. The elderly received the most frequent mention at the outset, and gained exemption from military service as a matter of course in many towns. This exemption was sometimes qualified if a son or nephew in the same household could be sent as a substitute. The few documents that cite a particular age one had to attain to gain the exemption give seventy as the figure, as in the Siete partidas, for example, which took care to recommend that elderly men be brought along on campaigns to take advantage of their experience and sage advice. Infirmity and substitution doubtless freed far more older men from service that this advanced age limitation.⁽⁴²⁾ Young males receive formal exemption as early as 1114 in the charters given to the [123] towns of Leon and Carrión, and more regularly after the middle of the twelfth century. No universal agreement existed regarding the age of maturity, and citations anywhere from thirteen to twenty years can be found.⁽⁴³⁾

There is a large category of exemptions from military service based on personal reasons of a temporary nature. First, a vecino might not be in the town or its environs when the call for service went out. When this occurred the individual was usually freed from any fine for non-service, although Benavente, Milmanda and Llanes cite only a pilgrimage to Rome as meriting an exemption. Should absent citizens return in the wake of a muster, they were expected to attempt to overtake the militia and join it.⁽⁴⁴⁾ The lawmakers considered the possibility that one might be in the lands of the town but fail to hear the summons to the militia, or to hear of it too late to join the force at the customary meeting place. If this occurred, the matter was judged and validated. The time granted for getting to the assembly point varied, Viguera allowing a day and the Coria Cima-Coa charters a half-day. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ The charters list illness at time of militia assembly as an excuse from service from 1164 (Estella) onward, but temporary physical incapacity to perform military duties must have constituted an unwritten excuse from the origins of militia service.⁽⁴⁶⁾

Family problems could create exemption situations. The charters of Leon and Carrión given by Urraca in 1114 granted an exemption rarely seen in the fueros, a one-year excuse from service or fine to those knights who had just been married, ironic in the light of the queen's recent and very troubled marriage.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Excuses involving family illness were more common. In the Navarrese towns of Estella and Viguera individuals could ignore the royal summons to military service if their wives were in labor or their parents were near death. More often the wife was the sole family member whose poor health might be cause for an exemption. Some of the Coria Cima-Coa towns freed men from service and fines if their wives were seriously ill, to remain home until their spouses recovered or passed away. Three fellow residents were to testify to the wife's condition, however. ⁽⁴⁸⁾ A number of Leonese fueros indicated a concern for the widower, granting him exemption from service and fees. Benavente and Llanes presented the bereaved warrior a year's leave, while the Coria Cima-Coa family offered a token pause of fifteen days, even then withdrawing the privilege if there were children of inheritable age available to look after affairs at home. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Caballeros whose horses were sick or unavailable were excused from service and fees in both the Cuenca-Teruel and Coria Cima-Coa charters, and the Cuenca group added horses [124] which were attached to the guarding of nearby fortifications to the excusable situations. Should the knight wish to serve despite his temporary lack of a mount, there were laws governing the borrowing of a horse for campaigns, presuming the payment of a proper fee and the securing of the owner's permission.⁽⁵⁰⁾

Aside from payment in place of service, the most important exemption classification was the substitution of one individual's service for another. The occasional suggestion appears that one can simply hire a substitute, such as those individuals declared caballeros by means of meeting a certain standard of wealth in Cáceres and Usagre who can send another in their stead. However, laws dealing with this type of hireling proxy for combat service appeared so infrequently that it is difficult to establish how common a practice it may have been. However, the Cuenca-Teruel charters specifically prohibited a hired substitute.⁽⁵¹⁾ Far more important were excuses of substitution gained when a householder sent a member of his family to serve in his place in the militia. Although not substitution per se, widows frequently had the right to send a son to military service to avoid the fee as far back as the charter of Nájera in 1076, and by 1156 Molina in Aragon gave this right to the clergy who could also send a nephew as well as a son. The standard family substitution was that of the elderly householder who possessed the right to send a son or nephew who was a part of the uncle's household to serve in his place.⁽⁵²⁾ In some charters the householder did not need to be elderly in order to send a relative as a substitute, but the fueros cited restrictions. Householders could send nephews to the militia, with the approval of the town concejo, without reference to their sons in the Coria Cima-Coa charters, providing that the nephew lived in their house for at least six month of the year, was twenty years old, and totally supported by the uncle. Sons and nephews could be sent in lieu of the householder if they were the heirs to his estate in Alcalá de Henares and Ledesma, the latter adding the sending of anyone as substitute who lived with the owner, shared his table and derived the bulk of his support from him.⁽⁵³⁾ These laws offer clear insights not only into the substitution process but also the means by which the household replaced the person who would be offering military service in the future. Thus, the exchange of responsibility between generations is underscored in the process.

The final category of military service exemptions constituted those exemptions granted in exchange for the contribution of weapons, equipment and supplies to the militia. The individual who possessed weapons, armament, animals and equipment and made some of these available to [125] his militia received one of the following rewards: excuses from military service, tax exemptions or booty shares (on booty shares, see Chapter Seven). Service excuses and tax exemptions are often difficult to differentiate, since the verb escusar was used in both cases. The ultimate intent was the same: the ample equipping and arming of a basic militia fighting force. Tax exemptions reduced the royal income to secure the materials, while excuses from service reduced the size of the militia forces. It is often ambiguous which option the monarchy is choosing to exercise. My own tendency is to assume that the exempted item was taxation unless reasonably clear indications point to service, instead.

The service excuse through the contribution of equipment appears to originate in the Fuero de Sepúlveda of 1076. Here the offering of a mail jacket and a helmet to a knight freed the contributor. Noteworthy also is the dual working of the principle in this law, as the service of one caballero or four peones frees the obligation of someone to contribute an ass to the militia, a proviso which also appears in the thirteenth century at Guadalajara where a knight's expeditionary service excused an animal contribution and at Alcalá de Henares where the juez can excuse three contributions of animals to the expedition.⁽⁵⁴⁾ The next example appeared in Portugal at Seia in 1136, where giving a yoked pair of animals secured an individual excuse from the fossato. Beyond a few isolated examples, the principle became best established in the Kingdom of Leon in the last half of the twelfth century, continuing into the thirteenth century even after the reunification with Castile in 1230. Nine Leonese towns received charters from the later twelfth through the mid-thirteenth century which have the principle of exemption from fonsado clearly stated or strongly implied, five of which have virtually identical lists of excuses to be acquired by the position held or the item contributed.⁽⁵⁵⁾ The Coria Cima-Coa group of seven charters in Leon and Portugal also discussed exemptions awarded for the contribution of equipment. The Benavente-Milmanda group contemporary with Coria Cima-Coa and the great concern over enumerating knightly as against infantry excuses in the Coria family strongly suggests that here as well it is service excuses rather than tax exemptions that absorb the attention of the redactors of the fueros. Coria differs from the Benavente group in specifying more categories of equipment to be contributed to the campaign, but otherwise they are similar.⁽⁵⁶⁾ It is evident that the excuses are specific to a particular campaign, and cannot be accumulated by individuals for a series of exemptions. The presumed advantage to the individual would be the acquisition of a group of persons dependent upon him for this relief of the obligation. The nature of the linkage is not clear, whether as family dependents, or as [126] members of a private entourage, or as possessors of a kind of economic connection to the individual who secured the excuses. None of these possibilities is clarified in the context.⁽⁵⁷⁾

The Castilian evidence indicates considerable ambiguity regarding excuses for equipment, since the normal tendency is to offer shares of booty in exchange for equipment contribution. When one encounters such excuses, it is natural to assume that it is the Leonese concept of exemption from service that rather than the Castilian tradition which presents itself, although the Castilian 1219 Fuero de Guadalajara appears to grant both tax exemption and service excuse simultaneously.⁽⁵⁸⁾ While some of this ambiguity reappears in the unified Toledo pattern of charters under Alfonso X with the charter granted to Arévalo in 1256, a number of the other charters in that pattern clarify the point that it is taxes from which the caballero gains excuse, not service.⁽⁵⁹⁾ It could therefore be argued that the tendency to grant multiple excuses to fully equipped knights in some of these same charters in this pattern also indicates that those excuses related to taxes, not service, although this is not absolutely clear in the context.⁽⁶⁰⁾ In many of these Alfonsine charters, knights obtain the right to exempt persons tied to particular occupations. Since some of these individuals are women, taxes and not service constitute the item being exempted. The nature of their tasks varies, and includes bread suppliers, plowmen, millers, gardeners, shepherds, beekeepers, butlers and male and female child custodians.⁽⁶¹⁾ All of this suggests an emerging wealthy class of knights in the towns who not only gain tax exemptions for themselves by their military service with proper equipment, but also make tax exempt a large class of personal retainers and household staff members. Alfonso X must have felt the need to maintain a well-equipped mounted warrior class very keenly to have sacrificed this much revenue.

Limitations and exemptions thus had a substantial impact on leavening the drain on municipal and personal resources that could be occur in frontier warfare. Since weapons and equipment constituted the source of many of these personal exemptions, at least in Leon, and because the arms, armor and various kinds of military gear offered their own kind of insulation from the impact of war, these merit examination in our study of the conditions of service.

The provision of war materials evolved as a topic of interest in the fueros from the eleventh century onward. While Spanish urban and military historians have often noted the importance of arms and equipment, [127] the most thorough examinations of armor and weapons evolution are comparatively recent and none of them focus exclusively on the Spanish kingdoms in the Central Middle Ages.⁽⁶²⁾ Towns were liable to supply requisition for the royal expeditions even in the Visigothic era, but gave little else to the armies of kings and nobles. The lack of good records obscures the slow evolution of the municipalities from supply depots to producers of militias until the later eleventh century, when Sepúlveda and Nájera refer to the use of armor and weaponry by their residents in 1076.⁽⁶³⁾ From this point a century of gradually increasing armament contribution either for one's self or for others develops, culminating in the Cordilleran charters in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Much of this legislation simply requires the residents to be sufficiently armed without describing the items required. ⁽⁶⁴⁾ Other towns require weapons of wood and of metal, again without any supplementary description.⁽⁶⁵⁾ By the later thirteenth century the list of arms and armament to be provided by the townsmen had become quite elaborate, indicative of the fully developed complexity of frontier warfare in its maturity.

How did the residents of towns come to acquire this growing array of battle gear? Some townsmen secured arms and armor from the king or their señor in exchange for battle service.⁽⁶⁶⁾ For a great expedition such as that mounted for the campaign of Las Navas, equipment was pooled and sold to those who lacked it.⁽⁶⁷⁾ Booty provided another common source, as noted in Chapter Seven. Once acquired, families carefully maintained their cache of weapons and equipment for the maintenance of their status and their possible economic gain through warfare. That a household maintained sufficient quantity to meet the foral requirements is revealed by a growing interest in the inheritance of arms and armor in the charters by the twelfth century. The sources reveal a particular concern that the horse, armor and basic battle gear of the knight be retained together as an inheritance for a surviving male heir, usually his eldest son. The Toledo-related charters establish this tendency especially well.⁽⁶⁸⁾ Some charters make it very clear that the horse, arms and armor are an impartible unit with regard to inheritance. ⁽⁶⁹⁾ The ordinances for Cuéllar, Extremadura and Madrid allow for the possibility of the deceased knight possessing more than the required equipment. If such is the case, the additional arms are to be formed into the required knightly ordinance and given to other male heirs, but they are not to be divided among non-combatants. The charters offer little information regarding the disposition of the arms and the horse should the caballero die without heirs. At Berrueco Pardo, they were [128] to be given to the Count of Urgel. The Coria Cima-Coa group of fueros require that they be offered in behalf of the deceased knight's soul, a euphemism which customarily means that they go to the Church. Presumably the town council arranged for their redistribution.⁽⁷⁰⁾

The most fundamental method for assuring the provision of sufficient equipment in the case of caballeros lay in requiring the use of such materials as a part of securing knightly tax exempt status. Since the knights of the towns were not a hereditary nobility in the Central Middle Ages, they had to maintain their horse and their proper military regalia to continue to qualify for the social and economic advantages of the class. By the later twelfth century, the arms required of the knight were specified in detail. Alfambra (1174-76) offered the first specific list, including the horse, two saddles, padded jacket, helmet, lance and shield. The nearly contemporary population charter of Teruel included this same list without the saddles and the jacket. The Navarrese charters of Artajona (1193) and Mendigorría (1208) listed shield and helmet as basic, while the early thirteenth-century version of Uclés added the sword for the first time and omitted the helmet.⁽⁷¹⁾ The unified foral pattern derived from the Toledo group which Alfonso X pressed on Castile in the later thirteenth century gave an extended list, including lance, sword, shield, helmet and adding a linked male jacket over the quilted jacket with supplementary thigh and arm protection.⁽⁷²⁾

A survey of the charters of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries yields a revealing story of the expansion in the variety of weapons and equipment together with an interesting pattern of social distinctions and regionalisms connected with the paraphernalia of battle. For instance, body armor, even the shield, appears most often in association with the caballero in the documents. Countering this impression are dueling laws such as those which appear in the Cuenca-Teruel fueros which indicate the use of armor and shields by peones and numerous artistic examples of unmounted armored figures bearing shields.⁽⁷³⁾ Arguably both knights and footsoldiers employed an increasing variety of armor in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but the mounted warrior was the most consistently and the most elaborately vested in armor.

From the eleventh century onward, the loriga, a long leather jacket with sleeves covered with rings or scales of metal, was the basic piece of body armament.⁽⁷⁴⁾ Variations of this hauberk-style light-armored jacket existed with sleeves to the elbow or sleeveless in design, variously called a lorigón, loricula or loriguella. The Espéculo among contemporary documents [129] offered the widest variety of descriptions.⁽⁷⁵⁾ Similar materials made up the almófar, a hood to protect the head and neck, constructed as one piece with the loriga or attached to it. More elaborate almófares extended under the jaw and covered the mouth. The soldier customarily donned a coif (cofía) beneath the almófar to protect the skin and hair from abrasion. (See Plates 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26). ⁽⁷⁶⁾ Beneath the loriga the body was protected by a long sleeved quilted jacket called the perpunt.⁽⁷⁷⁾

As the Reconquest pushed into Leonese Extremadura and Andalusia in the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries, additional types of armor, most of it pertaining to the knightly class, are listed, first in the Leonese fueros and then in those of Castile. The brofunera was the most commonly encountered piece of supplementary armor, designed to reinforce and protect the warrior's upper arms or thighs.⁽⁷⁸⁾ The Espéculo and Siete partidas offer a listing of knightly armor which added some newer styles of mail jackets, such as the camisote (where the sleeves extend over the wrist in contrast to a loriga where the sleeves reach only to the elbow), the guardacores (a sleeveless variety), and a foja (scaled jacket). Armor makers appear for the first time in a number of the municipal charters of the thirteenth century, beginning with Córdoba in 1241. Siete partidas recommended that armor be light for mobility, strong for effectiveness, and well finished in order to strike fear into the enemy.⁽⁷⁹⁾

The helmet, called a galea or capillo, was also a major piece of equipment for the militiamen, which could be worn by itself or over a mail coif depending on its size and the amount of protection it offered to the neck. Evolving from an earlier version made from leather, stout cloth or even palm leaves, by the eleventh century helmets consisted primarily of metal. In the medieval West the eleventh and early twelfth centuries favored a pointed conical cap reinforced by metal bands, but a more round-topped type emerged by the mid-twelfth century. A metal nose guard was occasionally attached extending from the headband. The thirteenth century witnessed the appearance of a pot-helmet which covered the entire head, with a small visor slot for vision. (See Plates 3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 26).⁽⁸⁰⁾ In Alfambra and the Cuenca-Teruel family of charters the possession of either the mail coif or the helmet was sufficient to meet knightly requirements, although the Romance version of Teruel required both. However, in two of the later Cuenca charters given to Baeza and Béjar and in all of the Toledo family given by Alfonso X only the helmet was mentioned.⁽⁸¹⁾

Shields completed the defensive armament of the militiaman. Wood [130] and leather constituted the primary materials of construction, although metal seems increasingly to have been used by the later thirteenth century. The municipal charters specified the possession of a shield for knightly status more frequently than any other piece of defensive armament. Its use by footsoldiers is clear from the surviving artistic evidence, although infrequently mentioned in the fueros, save in the dueling laws. (See Plates 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17).⁽⁸²⁾ The earliest and most common of the three primary types was circular and came in a variety of sizes. Representations of the shield in the visual arts show more of the variation in size, while in actuality it probably reached more often from the knees to the shoulders and was designed to protect the trunk of the body from missile and bladed weapons. One sees it both in Christian and Muslim hands although it is customarily thought to be Muslim in origin. A second type of Muslim shield, heart-shaped in form, appears in the thirteenth century. This type is depicted frequently in the Escorial Cantigas manuscript (T.I.1) and there were no indications of Christian use. The third style consisted of the familiar kite-shaped shield, introduced in all probability from France during the eleventh century. This shape was not unknown in the Muslim world, and like the circular shield is represented in a variety of sizes. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer argues that cavalry employed the kite-shaped shield while infantry used the circular one, but the pictorial evidence does not bear this conjecture out.⁽⁸³⁾

Offensive combat weaponry was not as differentiated as defensive armor between knightly and infantry arms, notwithstanding a tendency of the charters to distinguish between them. The lance exemplified this dual role rather well. It provided a basic piece of offensive equipment and consisted of a metal point attached to a long, stout wooden shaft standing taller than a man. When employed by a caballero it was often couched under the arm and used as a shock or contact weapon. ⁽⁸⁴⁾ Military historians often regard it as an exclusively knightly weapon, but the municipal charters and the Siete partidas list it in the arsenal of infantrymen, as well. Contemporary manuscript illustrations and sculpture support infantry usage, where the peón utilized the lance as a rudimentary pike, possibly bracing the shaft end against the ground to withstand an opponent's charge. (See Plates 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 19, 27).⁽⁸⁵⁾ The javelin, styled the dardo, provided an important variant on the lance, since it could be hurled at the enemy. In a number of the Cuenca (but not the Teruel) family of charters, as well as in the Espéculo and the Siete partidas, it was defined as an infantry weapon. Yet caballeros can be seen in a number of manuscripts [131] grasping a long pointed shaft with their arms cocked ready to hurl. (See Plate 3). Either this device was some type of dardo or it may have been a special form of throwing lance. Such a weapon provided the combination of the firepower of the arrow with the weight of the lance, useful in light-armored combat.⁽⁸⁶⁾

The other most frequently cited knightly weapon in the municipal charters was the sword, which consisted of a two-edged blade extending from the hip to the ankle in length. The blade did not narrow appreciably until it approached its point. While the point did permit its occasional use as a thrusting device, in the Central Middle Ages knights used the sword primarily as a chopping weapon. The chronicles comment on its effect against mail, citing instances where a sword blade sliced through a mail coif and its under padding to crack the skull underneath.⁽⁸⁷⁾ While contemporary artistic examples offer numerous instances of unmounted warriors wielding a sword, the municipal charters and the Alfonsine codes tie it exclusively to the knight. (See Plates 2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21).⁽⁸⁸⁾

There was also a class of miscellaneous small arms, largely associated with the footsoldier. The charters noted a variety of daggers, knives and machete-type short swords (cuchiellos, siculi, alfanges, bullones) which constituted the prime contact weaponry of infantry after expending their lances and javelins. (See Plates 19, 22). While rarely depicted in combat usage, contemporary art illustrated their use in other situations (the Sacrifice of Isaac, for example). Iberia had been, indeed, the contributor of the long knife for thrusting called the gladius to the Roman arsenal. Several fueros also mentioned the porra, a club or mace. This could be formed entirely of wood or by a wooden handle joined to a metal head. Only Cuenca among the charters mentioned an iron mace, and the porra in other charters and the Siete partidas is described as a footsoldier's weapon.⁽⁸⁹⁾

The last category of offensive weapons, bows and crossbows, provided the basic firepower of the municipal militias. In contrast to France and the other Western European principalities, archery in the Iberian Peninsula was not the exclusive prerogative of the footsoldier.⁽⁹⁰⁾ While there existed some tendency to assign the weapon to the peón in the Siete partidas, numerous municipal charters refer to knightly archers, who receive twice the foot archer's booty shares from military service provided they maintained the skill and the minimum requirement of bow cords and arrows. (See Plates 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 24, 25, 27).⁽⁹¹⁾ Indeed, in a number of towns archers constituted a special legal class. By 1136 they came to enjoy the [132] rights of knights in some of the Portuguese municipalities, especially those receiving forais of the Santarém group. This same awarding of caballero status appears occasionally in the Toledo family of Castilian charters beginning with those portions of the Fuero de Escalona which date from the later twelfth century.⁽⁹²⁾ Regarding the question whether the caballero archers of Aragon, Castile and Portugal fired their bows and crossbows from the mounted position, the evidence is ambiguous. The numerous depictions of mounted archers in the visual arts could be reflecting an iconographic tradition rather than illustrating reality, and the chronicles offer no instances of the Christian use of mounted archers. Even on the Muslim side, there were no sure indications that the native Hispano-Muslims of Al-Andalus possessed mounted archers. Cagigas believes that a group of Turkish archers called the agzâz had come to the Iberian Peninsula by the later twelfth century to fight at Alarcos and Las Navas, although it is unclear whether these archers were mounted. Jiménez de Rada has also left us the splendidly enigmatic description of the Parthian-like archers (similis Parthis sagittarum) who fought for the Muslims at Las Navas. In sum, the evidence that either side utilized mounted archers is inconclusive.⁽⁹³⁾

Some of the combat gear was in the exclusive dominion of the caballero, since the horse required a certain amount of riding equipment. The saddle was emphasized, and the charters of Coria, Cáceres, Castello-Bom and Usagre in Leonese Extremadura and Uclés, Alcalá de Henares and Sepúlveda in Castile made a particular point of mandating that the horse provided should not have been used in the past with an albarda (packsaddle) or an ataharrado (croup strap), since these items were used by pack animals and were not proper for knight combat service. Other towns simply pressed for a horse bearing a saddle.⁽⁹⁴⁾ A number of the Castilian fueros as well as the Alfonsine codes mention the usefulness of a mail covering for the horse (loriga de cavallo or brunia) and grant booty shares for its provision in combat. (See Plates 11, 12). King Jaime found such armored horses valuable against the lighter Muslim cavalry, often saving them for a second assault after leading with unarmored horses.⁽⁹⁵⁾ Protecting the horse constituted a good investment for both ruler and knight; the king wished to maintain an ample supply of municipal cavalry and the caballero's very status depended on the animal.⁽⁹⁶⁾

The style of riding evolved significantly in the Central Middle Ages. Contemporary illustrations indicate that Christian knights rode in [133] the manner of the Berbers, styled a la jineta, a method which stressed the close bond of the rider and light fast horse, primarily the North African barb. The saddle was high seated with a large pommel and short leg-straps which kept the rider's knees bent, giving him maximum control of the horse. The saddle and straps provided spring to the legs to gain added momentum for hurling weapons. This riding style continued in use among the Muslims and many Christians throughout the central and later medieval periods. However, the later eleventh and early twelfth centuries witnessed the gradual penetration of a newer riding style which was popular in France and appeared in Hispania as a part of the general wave of French influence just prior to 1100. This method, called a la brida, developed in conjunction with the increased use of body armor and a stockier, more powerful horse. The saddle tended to be lower with a smaller pommel and longer leg-straps, allowing the rider to keep his legs straight. While losing some control of the horse and yielding maneuverability to the Muslim method, the brida method set the knight more firmly on the back of his horse. This posture aided the rider in resisting the onslaught of the enemy attack and in turn enabled him to drive home his lance from a firmer base. This permitted the possibility of the massed charge already a part the feudal West which the crusaders would soon bring to the Near East.⁽⁹⁷⁾ The growing twelfth and thirteenth-century emphasis on armor in the municipal charters was no doubt affected by this change, although manuscript illustrations would indicate that both styles continued in use by Christian warriors to the end of the Middle Ages, and in equestrian circles both have been maintained to the present day.

Other campaigning equipment occasionally appears in the charters. Nájera obtained tax exemptions for those who contributed vehicles for transporting combat material. In many towns those who provided a field tent, especially if they themselves served, received excuses from military service which they could grant to others. This tienda redonda or round tent consisted of stout cloth, attached to a center pole by lines and staked at its bottom edge. (See Plate 26). Two poles could be placed together to form an elliptical tent. A number of illustrations of field tents exist, especially in King Alfonso's Cantigas de Santa María manuscript in the Escorial.⁽⁹⁸⁾ Finally, a chain receives mention in many charters. Such a chain usually included twelve attached collars used for containing prisoners on the return march from a campaign.⁽⁹⁹⁾ A curious piece of regionalism appeared in connection with the field tent and the prisoner [134] chain. Prior to the mid-thirteenth century the tent references appeared exclusively in the Leonese charters and always secured excuses from military service for the supplier, while the prisoner chain received citation only in the Castilian charters and gained a share of spoils for the provider. To be certain, the tent and its attached exemptions find their way to Castile in the age of Alfonso X. Prior to this, however, the argument from silence might seem to imply that Castile produced a hardy breed of militiamen who slept in the open on campaign, while the ruthless Leonese militias took no prisoners. A better explanation centers on the regional nature of militia obligations and the reasonable assumption that in each case the king or other authority provided the campaign needs which the militiamen did not.

Thus, the town militias were summoned and their numbers determined by established regulations and agreed to by ruler and townsmen. A delicate balance of limitations, exemptions and the provision of equipment existed in each municipality aimed at avoiding undue hardship on the individual while maintaining the militia at serviceable strength. Our evidence is richer for Leon, Castile and Aragon than it is for Portugal, Navarre and Catalonia, and one can more safely generalize upon the practices of the Central Meseta than on those of the latter three areas. In the Meseta we find that the balance of limitations, exemptions and equipment contribution is especially developed in the Kingdom of Leon, where exemptions were more numerous, the knightly class emphasized, and the militias probably smaller. Castilian policy, on the other hand, utilized limitations and exemptions with more restraint. Equipment was amassed by granting shares of booty, not the exemptions which thinned the numbers on the battlefield, a policy which paid significant dividends for the Castilian kings. Their towns could be counted upon to produce larger levies, more footsoldiers and a more reliable combat force. The more rapid expansion of the Castilian frontier in its drive toward Andalusia must have owed at least some debt to this monarchical approach to town law. To the extent that Alfonso II and Jaime I used their Aragonese and Catalan town militias in the conquest of the Cordillera and of the Principality of Valencia, a similar benefit could be said to have accrued to Aragon. And if this is true, then the increasing appearance of Leonese municipal legal tendencies in Castile during the reign of Alfonso X suggests potential problems. In particular with regard to the kinds of service exemptions heretofore absent in the eastern Meseta kingdom along with a growing focus on knightly privileges, one is looking at policies which apparently inhibited the Leonese militias as an effective [135] military force. To see these same tendencies emerge in Alfonsine Castile may serve partially to explain the stagnation which overtook Alfonso X's expansion efforts when he chose to draw on Leonese traditions rather than those of Castile in formulating his municipal military policy.

1.  Some of the introductory material for this chapter was first published in my "Frontier Military Service and Exemption," 45:75-78.

2. ²Pescador, 33-34:185.

3.  "Alfonso el Batallador otorga privilegios a los mozárabes traídos de Granada, 1126," 1:45. "Fuero de los pobladores mozárabes de Mallén," 504. In each of the two preceding cases Alfonso indicated a sensitivity toward the politically and religiously exposed individuals he had brought back from the expedition against Granada, keeping them out of combat with either Muslims or Christians. The remaining examples offer no explanation for the exemption in the context of the charter. "Fuero de Torrecilla de Cameros, 1197," 33:133. "Fuero de la tierra de Frieyra," 14:566. "Excusa de tributación a los moradores de Alcázar, 1208," 3:444. This was soon supplanted by the longer fuero in the Cuenca-Teruel format with an extensive body of military law. FAlr, ff. 95r-101r. "(Foral de) Campo, 1213," 1:566. "Excusa de tributación al concejo de Carrascosa," 3:733. "Alfonso X concede tierras y exenciones en Requena," 167. "Carta otrogada por Jaime I para la población de Sarreal," 1:447. "El concejo de Ávila concede a Velasco Velázquez, 1283," 461. This is merely a regional sampling of these exemptions.

4.  "Forais de S. João da Pesqueira, Penella, Paredes, Linares et Anciães, 1055-65," 1:343-48. Here as with a number of the Portuguese citations, it is the emergency service, appelitum, which is being referred to. "Fuero condedido a Nájera," 2:79-85. "Fuero latino de Sepúlveda, 1076," 48. "Fuero concedido a Jaca (c. 1076)," 3-4. The same specification appears in the renewal of the Jacan charter by Ramiro I (1134-37). "Los fueros de Jaca, (1134-37)," 129-34. Similarly, Ansiães retains this provision when its foral is renewed by Afonso I. "Confirmação dos foros de Ansiães," 1:188.

5.  "Privilegio del rey don Alfonso VII otorgado en el año de 1124 de Burgos," 266. A strong case for dating this Burgos fuero after 1127 has been advanced. See Reilly, Queen Urraca, 189-90. "Privilegio de D. Alfonso I el Batallador confirmando los privilegios de la ciudad de Barbastro," 357. "Fueros de Tudela, Cervera y Galipiezo," 418. "Fueros y usages de los infanzones de Aragón concedidos después a los vecinos de Zaragoza, 1134," 93-94. "Fuero de Daroca, 1142," 362. "Carta de foral concedida aos moradores de Sintra," 1:301. "Fuero de Oviedo (1145?)," 114. See Chapter One, note 52 for the thirteenth century origins of this version. "Fuero de Carcastillo," 470-71. "Fuero de Estella," 87. "Fuero de Alhóndiga," 76-77. "Fuero de población de la villa de Los Arcos," 1:511. The restriction also appears in 22 members of the Santarém family from 1179 to 1277, where appelitum is the term. "Fuero de Villavaruz de Ríoseco," 83. "Carta de franquicias otorgada por Alfonso I, rey, a los habitantes de Puigcerdá, 1182," 1:234. "Fueros de Santander dados en 1187," 4:307. FTL, 7. FTR, 5. Only Teruel of all the charters in the Cuenca-Teruel family specifies the king alone. "Fuero de Urroz, 1195," 2:59. "(Foral de) Souto, 1196," 1:504. "Alfonso VIII confirma los fueros de Guipúzcoa," 3:225.

6. In addition to those charters of the Santarém family awarded in the thirteenth century which had this stipulation, there are a number of other Portuguese towns which cite it. "(Foral de) Valazim," 1:519. "(Foral de) S. Martha e Beduido," 1:523. "(Foral de) Souto, 1207," 1:535. "(Foral de) Ferreiros, Fontemanha e Valdavy," 1:546. "(Foral de) Favaios," 1:555. "(Foral de) Atouguia," 1:450-51. "(Foral de) Castello de Pena-Ruiva," 1:551. "(Foral de) Montemór Velho," 1:557. "(Foral de) Canedo," 1:562. "(Foral de) Ceides," 1:573. "(Foral de) Villa-Chan," 1:575. "(Foral de) Sabadelhe, 1220," 1:584. "(Foral de) Barqueiros," 1:597. "(Foral de) Sanquinhedo," 1:598. The Cidadêlhe family (see Appendix A) all have this provision, except Condado, Capeludos, Villa-Mean, Guilhado, Gouviães and Nuzedo. "(Foral de) Antela," 1:648. "(Foral de) Villa-Nova de Gaia," 1:663. "(Foral de) Codeçaes," 1:676. "(Foral de) Ferreiros, 1258," 1:678. "(Foral de) Murça e Noura," 1:710. "(Foral de) Monforte de Rio Livre," 1:730.

7.  "Alfonso VIII confirma una concordia entre la Orden de Santiago y el Concejo de Ocaña, 1210," 17:660, and "Noticia, sin fecha, sobre la concordia entre la Orden de Santiago y el Concejo de Ocaña," 17:662. "Fernando III concede a Frías el fuero, 1217," 2:16. "El fuero de la villa de San Emeterio," 76:239. "Fernando III confirma el convenio de Arévalo, 1219," 2:67. Privilegium de los fueros de Brioga (Brihuega), (c. 1223)," 8:420. Fuero de San Justo, 1223, MSS 13.094, f. 51v. "Pacto foral de Talamanca," 8:418. "Carta-puebla de Morella de Don Blasco de Alagón, 1233," 3:517-18. Morella was given the Fuero de Sepúlveda which contained this provision. "Fuero de la Puente de Deustamben," 411. "Los fueros de Villadiego," 137-38. "Fuero dado a la villa de Sahagún por Alfonso X, 25 april 1255," 2:230. "El Obispo de León y el Concejo de Mansilla llegan a un acuerdo, 1257," 20:740. "El Obispo de León y el Concejo de Castroverde establecen acuerdo," 20:744. "Fuero romanceado de Sepúlveda, 1300," 92. Fuero real del don Alonso el Sabio, 4:19:1-5. Fuero real de Afonso X, o Sábio: Versão portuguesa, 156-57. "El Espéculo o espejo de todos los derechos," 3:5:10. The Fuero real also fines militias who arrive unsummoned.

8.  "Fuero de León, 1020," 15:487. "Fuero de Sahagún, 1085," 2:37. "Fuero de Carcastillo," 470-71. Fuero de Alfambra, 25. FCfs, 1:15-16. FCmsp, 1:17-18. FCcv, 1:1:11. FP, 7-8. FAlz, 1:18-19. FAln, 15-16. FH, f. 4v. FBa, 16-17. FI, 13. FAlr, f. 7v. FUb, 4A, 4B. MS8331, 12. FBe, 21. FVH, 17. FCA, 491. FU, 417. "(Foral de) Renalde," 1:537. "Cajón I, documento 5, Archivo municipal de Tarragona, 1211," 1:546. Fuero de Torre de Tiedar, 1247, MSS 13080, f. 77v.

9.  "Fuero de Palenzuela, 1074," 276. The Numaão-Trancoso family in Portugal (see Appendix A) states the obligation this way, save for Valença (1217), which omits mention of the señor. "Fueros de Ribas de Sil, 1225," 2:570. "Fuero de Castrojeriz, 1234," 38. El fuero de Brihuega, 122. "Fuero de Fuentes de la Alcarria," 18:363.

10.  FSepúlveda 1076, 48. FJaca 1076, 3-4. FJaca 1137, 129-31. FBurgos 1124, 266. FZaragoza 1134, 93-94. FEstella 1164, 1:87. "Fueros de San Vicente de la Sosierra," 4:208. "Fuero de Vitoria," 1:226. FTL, 7. FTR, 5. These are the only two charters in the Cuenca-Teruel family to have this provision. "Alfonso VIII concede fuero a la nueva puebla de Arganzón, 1191," 3:97. "Fuero de Inzura," 56-60. "Fueros de Laguardia, 1208," 81. "Fuero de la Burunda," 85-86. "Fuero de Viana, 1219," 35:417. CpMorella 1233, 3:517-18. One Portuguese reference, while not employing the term lid campal, insists that the militia should not be mustered unless there was significant work to be done ("...quando forte opus fuerit"). "(Foral de) Setúbal," 1:634.

11.  FS. Joaão da Pesqueira, Penella, Paredes, Linhares & Anciães, 1:346. FAnsiães 1137-39, 1:188. FSintra, 1:301. "Carta de población de la villa de Sarnés," 2:507-08. FGuipúzcoa, 3:225. Guipúzcoa, recently taken from the Navarrese by Alfonso VIII, also specified a military obligation against Navarre, as well. FOcaña 1210, 660. "(Foral de) Covellinas," 1:494. "Carta de foral concedida aos moradores do Banho," 1:293. FAtouguia, 1:450-51. "(Foral de) Marmelar, 1194," 1:489. "(Foral de) Sancta Cruz, 1225," 1:601. "Sancho el Sabio, rey de Navarra, concede fueros a Artajona," 249. "Fuero dado a la villa de Lárraga," 1:508. "Confirmación de los fueros de Mendigorría, 1194," 28-29. "Fuero concedido a Miranda de Arga," 10:72. FSabadelhe, 1:584. Fuero real, 4:19:1-5. Fuero real, versão portuguesa, 156-57.

12.  "Capitulos del fuero de Sobrarbe," 13:31-35. "Fuero de Cáseda," 475. "Fuero de Asín," 505. "Fuero de Marañón," 2:121. "El fuero de San Estebán de Luesia," 591. FCO, 280. FCA, 279. FCB, 279. FU, 287. FMarmelar, 1:489. Fuero de Viguera y Val de Funes, 49-50. "Carta de población de Cabanes," 1:409. "Carta de franquicias de Prats de Molló," 1:414. "Carta de población de Beniayxó y Tahalfazar," 1:426.

13.  "Carta de población de Longares," 250. "FNájera," 2:84-85. "Fuero de Escalona, 1130," 45:465. FSintra, 1:301. "Recopilación de los fueros de Toledo, (hacia 1166)," 45:474-75. López Ferreiro, ed., Fueros municipales de Santiago, 1:36-38. The Numão-Trancoso family contains this law, except for Valença which omits it; the Évora family also contains the limitation (see Appendix A). "(Foral de) Bragança," 1:463. "Alfonso VIII excusa al concejo de Aceca de tributos, 1188," 2:882. "(Foral de) Penacova, 1192," 1:483. FPena-Ruiva, 1:551. The Cidadêlhe family in Portugal similarly contains the limitation (see Appendix A). "Fuero de Campomayor," 499-500.

14.  "Fernando III otorga al concejo de Ávila un fuero, 1222," 2:202. "Fernando III concede al concejo de Uceda un fuero, 1222," 2:204. "Fernando III otorga al concejo de Peñafiel el fuero, 1222," 2:206. "Fernando III otorga al concejo de Madrid el fuero, 1222," 2:208. FCórdoba Lat, 3:221. "Fuero de Cartagena," 23-24. "Fuero de Carmona, (8 May 1252)," 4. "Fuero de Alicante," 42. "Fuero de Lorca, 1271," 78.

15.  FS. João, FPenella, FParedes, FLinhares, FAnciães, 1:346. "Foral de Guimarães, 1095-96," 1:2. "Foral outorgado a Constantim de Panóias," 1:5. "Fueros de Santiago, 1105," 3:62. FAnsiáes 1137-39, 1:157. "Carta de foral concedida aos povoadores de Mesão-Frio," 1:290. FSintra, 1:301. "Carta de foral de Celeirós," 1:353. "(Foral de) Covas," 1:388. "Foral concedido aos moradores de Urros," 1:463. "(Foral de) Mortagua," 1:482. FPenacova, 1:483. "(Foral de) Soverosa, 1196," 1:501. "(Foral de) Abaças," 1:514. "(Foral de) Guiães," 1:520. "(Foral de) Rebordãos," 1:538. FRibas de Sil, 2:570. "(Forais de) Traseira, Paradela, Gouvinhas, Ordonho e Agrocovo, 1256," 1:666. "(Foral de) S. Mamede de Riba-Tua," 1:700. "(Foral de) Padornelos," 1:705.

16.  "(Foral de) Cernancelhe," 1:364. FSabadelhe, 1:584. Historia Compostellana, 20:324-25. Reilly, Queen Urraca, 145.

17.  FJaca 1076, 3-4. FSahagún, 2:37. "Fuero de Argüedas," 10:255. "Fueros de Barbastro, 1100," 334. "Pedro I concede carta de fueros de Caparroso," 371. "Pedro I concede los fueros de Santacara," 373. "Alfonso I de Aragón concede a los pobladores de Zaragoza los fueros de los infanzones de Aragón, 1119," 83. FBurgos 1124, 266. FCarcastillo, 470-71. FBarbastro Alfonso I, 357. FTudela, FCervera y Galipiezo, 418. "Las franquicias de Huesca," 135. "Alfonso VII confirma los fueros y usos de los infanzones y barones de Aragón," 93-94. FJaca 1134-37, 129-31. FAvilés-Oviedo, 114. FEstella, 1:87. FViguera y Val de Funes, 49. In the event of an enemy attack, the king expected the mounted nobility of Viguera to do military service with their own supplies for three days, and they were liable for six additional days sustained with royal supplies. Ramos y Loscertales, "Textos para el estudio del derecho aragonés," 5:406. The language in which the three-day supply of bread is couched has led some (e.g. Bard, Navarra: The Durable Kingdom, 48) to assume that the residents need not serve unless they had a sufficient bread supply. Estella has it "...ut non fuissent in hoste, nisi cum pane trium dierum;" a possible reading, but unlikely in the context of the other charters. In Caparroso, Santacara and Huesca, for example, it is clear the militiamen are to come with those supplies in hand. The probability is that they will pay whatever fine is assessed for failing to serve if they arrive at muster without the proper supplies.

18.  "Alfonso VII confirma los fueros y usos de los infanzones y barones de Aragón," 93-94. "Alfonso I de Aragón concede a Zaragoza los fueros, 1119," 83-84.

19.  "Alfonso VIII da el castello de Olmos al concejo de Segovia," 2:141-43.

20.  FCA, 491. FU, 417. FCartagena 1246, 24. FSan Justo, f. 51v. FBrihuega 1223, 420. FTalamanca, 418. FP, 7. Plasencia possesses the most untypical charter in the Cuenca-Teruel group, and is the only one to specify a time limit on service. FTorre de Tiedar, f. 77v. González, Repartimiento de Sevilla, 2:138. FSepúlveda 1300, 92. "Jaime I comunica al concejo de Zaragoza, 15 julio 1274," 239-40. "Jaime I mandó exercitum civitatibus, 29 marzo 1275," 1150. "Orden del Rey Jaime por carta a las ciudades, 8 abril 1275," 1152. Each of these summons required a three-month supply, while the following required two. "Misit litteras dominus Rex Jacobus hominibus villarum, 13 junio 1275," 1158. The French threat of invasion in 1285 led Pedro to demand a four-month supply in a muster of over two hundred towns. "Misit litteras dominus Rex Petrus hominibus villis," Reg. 43, ff. 106r-108v, 118r-118v.

21.  "Jaume I atorga al seu fill," 3:473.

22.  Crónica latina de los reyes de Castilla, 107, 119. González, Fernando III, 1:319, 328. Espéculo, 3:5:4-6.

23.  "(Foral de) Villa-Nova," 1:530. "Carta-puebla de Villagrassa," 8:73. FCfs, 1:15-16. FCmsp, 1:17-18. FCcv, 1:1:11. FP, 7-8. FAlz, 1:18-19. FAln, 15-16. FH, f. 4v. FBa, 16-17. FI, 13. FAlr, f. 7v. FUb, 4A, 4B. MS8331, 12. FBe, 21. FVH, 17. FCA, 491. FU, 417. FSancta Cruz, 1:601.

24.  FMartha e Beduido, 1:523. FSouto, 1:535. For the Cidadêlhe family of forais, see Appendix A. Among those, Alijó, Condado, Capeludos, Villa-Mean, Guilhado, Gouviães and Nuzedo do not have the Minho-Douro restriction, and Penunxel cites only the Douro. "Privilegio del Rey Alfonso X, concediendo a los caballeros de linage que fueren a poblar a Arcos de la Frontera," 1:240.

25.  FÁvila 1222, 2:202. FUceda, 2:204. FPeñafiel 1222, 2:206. FMadrid 1222, 2:208.

26.  Espéculo, 3:5:16.

27.  Palenzuela listed four towns (Palencia, Carrión, Burgos and Lerma) to the northwest, north and northeast as constituting the limit of service required from its knights and foot soldiers (a zone approximately 40 by 70 kilometers). Sahagún listed Valcácer to the northeast as its boundary, while Oviedo and Avilés drew a line to the southwest between Valcálcer and Leon (80 to 100 kilometers). Puigcerdá had to fight only between Terranera on the south and the see of Urgel on the north; Treviño served between the Duero and the Roncesvalles Pass in the Pyrenees (c. 80 kilometers); Mendavia's range covered the small wedge between the Ebro River and the Kingdom of Navarre. Three towns mentioned seaborne service assignments, with Ericeira in Portugal eliminating them, Cartagena in Castile having them count in lieu of land expeditions, and Colliure stating land limitations to the County of Roussillon and sea expeditions between Barcelona and Montpellier. FSahagún, 2:37. FAvilés-Oviedo, 114. FPuigcerdá, 1:234. "Fuero otorgado por el Rey D. Alfonso X al concejo de Treviño," 1:47. "Fuero dado a Mendavia," 11:494. "(Foral de) Ericeira," 1:621. FCartagena 1246, 23-24. "Carta de franquicias de Colliure," 1:309.

28.  CPPeñafiel 942, 66:373. "Fuero de Fresnillo," 46.

29.  FMarañón, 2:121. FCáseda, 475. FCarcastillo, 470-71. Fuero de Calatayud, 37. "Fuero de Lara," 142. "Fuero de Uclés, 1179," 2:518. "Carta de fueros otorgada al concejo de Zorita por el rey Don Alfonso VIII, 1180," 418-19. For the Numão-Trancoso family, see Appendix A. Cáseda and Carcastillo are somewhat unclear in their wording, but in the context of the other charters their law falls into this pattern. All of these towns establish their ratios for the knights only, as the footsoldiers were often exempt from fonsado service. Only Cáseda and Lara seemed to apply the ratio to all residents.

30.  "Fuero de Guadalajara (1137)," 108-09. For the Ávila-Évora family, see Appendix A. FCampomayor, 499-500. FViguera y Val de Funes, 12.

31.  CPA, 18-19, 34-35.

32.  Penela in Portugal and Toro, Alcalá de Henares and Villadiego in Leon-Castile had one-half; of the remaining Leonese-Castilian towns, Astudillo and Castrojeriz had two-thirds serving, Canales de la Sierra had one-quarter, Ledesma three of each eight knights, and Tajonar in Navarre had nine-tenths. "Carta a favor dos moradores de Penela," 1:193. "Fueros de Toro, 1222," 2:536. "Fuero de Alcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 284. FVilladiego, 137-38. "Fuero de Astudillo," 241-43. FCastrojeriz, 38. "Fuero de Canales de la Sierra," 50:317-18, 54:196. "Fuero de Ledesma," 263. "Teobaldo I da a tributo a los de Taxonar (Tajonar), 1251 (?)," 221.

33.  FCfs, 30:4. FCmsp, 30:4. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:3. FTR, 574. FAlbR, 180-81. FP, 495. FAlz, 10:4. FAln, 594. FH, f. 82r. FZ, 612. FBa, 673. FI, 642. FAlr, f. 95v. FUb, 54D. MS8331, 694. FBe, 896. FA, 284. FCO, 282. FCR, 4:24. FCM, 155. FCA, 281. FCB, 281. FU, 289. For the Santarém family, see Appendix A. FLárraga, 1:508. FArtajona, 249. FMendigorría, 28-29. FMiranda de Arga, 10:270.

34.  For the Santarém family of forais, see Appendix A. In this group, Povos in 1195 omits the sixty-knight levy, and Aguiar in 1269 levies nine knights, possibly a mistaken substitution of IX for LX. "Carta puebla de Pinell, 1198," 24:593. "Carta pacificationis et transactionis quam fecit inclitus Ildefonsus, rex Aragonensium, cum consulibus et omni populo Nicensi (Nice, June, 1176)," 2:356. In this document the levies for several southern French towns are offered: Varro, 100; Cianam, 100; Rodanum, 50. "Annales D. Alfonsi Portugallensium regis," 157-58.

35.  Navarrese Viana was freed of the fonsadera in 1275 because of recent combat damage suffered from a Castilian assault. "Perdone al concejo y moradores de Viana, 4 enero 1275," 1:203-04. Oviedo was freed from the tax-fine in 1256 by Alfonso X for exactly the opposite reason: he wanted only their military service. "Carta del Rey D. Alfonso X a favor de la ciudad de Oviedo, 1256," 1:101. The fee was occasionally assessed from non-combatants such as the herders of Fermoselle near Zamora as a war tax for Andalusia. Pescador del Hoyo, Archivo municipal de Zamora, 191. The Fuero real insisted that militias which came without royal approval would be compelled to return and pay their fine, regardless. Fuero real, 4:19:1-5. Fuero real, versão portuguesa, 156-57.

36.  For the Numão and Évora families, see Appendix A. "Fuero de Santiago de Compostela, 1113," 1:91. "Confirmación del fuero de los francos de Toledo, 1136," 45:427-32, 467. "Alfonso VII confirma los fueros y usos de los infanzones y barones de Aragón, 1134," 92-94. FA, 111, 226. FCO, 110, 215. FCR, 5:48, 6:14. FCM, 204, 243. FCA, 111, 217. FCB, 106, 217. FU, 119, 222. Cáceres and Usagre required that the smith make at least thirty plowshares. "Fuero de Parga," 16:653. FAvilés-Oviedo, 114. "Teobaldo I confirma a los collazos escancianos de Urroz, 1237," 186. Antonio Gómez de la Torre, Corografía de Toro, 105.

37.  Historia Compostellana, 20:168-69. Reilly, Queen Urraca, 91-94. Fletcher, Episcopate of the Kingdom of León, 81-82.

38.  "Privilegio concedido a los clérigos de Toledo por Alfonso VII, 1128," 45:463. "FNájera," 2:84-85. "Fuero de Soria, 1120," 8:586. The Numão-Trancoso family contains this provision (see Appendix A). FMarañón, 2:121. FDaroca, 366. "Posturas municipaes de Coimbra, 1145," 1:744. "Privilegio de Fernando II a Salamanca, 1167," 1:234-35. "Fuero de Salamanca," 206. "El fuero de Llanes," 1:116-18. Santiago and Haro list the fee exemption for clergy, only. "FSantiago, 1113," 1:147. "Alfonso VIII concede fuero al concejo de Haro," 2:804-06. Fuero de Molina de Aragón, 74. "El fuero de Sanabria," 13:286.

39.  FEstella, 1:106. FCfs, 30:6. FCmsp, 30:6. FCcv, 3:14:5. FP, 497. FAlz, 10:6. FAln, 598. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 614. FBa, 675. FI, 646. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54F. MS8331, 696. FBe, 899. FCastrojerez 1234, 38.

40.  "Fueros de Santa Cristina," 222. "Fueros de León y Carrión, 1114," 49. "Alfonso VIII mejora ciertos fueros de Calahorra, 1181," 3:57. FBrihuega 1256, 188. FFuentes de la Alcarria, 18:395.

41.  "FNájera," 2:84-85. All members of the Santarém family exempt widows unless they have sons in their household (see Appendix A). "FHaro," 2:804-06. FViguera y Val de Funes, 50. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 319. FFuentes de la Alcarria, 18:391.

42.  FLara, 139-40. "Carta a favor dos moradores de Arouce (Louzã)," 1:287. Pedrogam received a nearly identically-worded law in 1206, in "(Foral de) Pedrogam," 1:531. The Santarém family also exempts the elderly (see Appendix A). By the later thirteenth century, Villa Nova d'Alvito in Portugal, while not citing age specifically, allows the lame and the blind to secure exemption if they secure certification from the town council, in "Costumes de Santarém communicados a Villa Nova d'Alvito," 2:50. FViguera y Val de Funes, 50. Siete partidas, 2:19:3. Duran i Sanpere, "Defensa de la ciutat," 312-13. The Charter of Viguera specifies seventy as the age, while Duran i Sanpere places the Barcelona age at fifty-five. The remaining charters require an available substitute in the household. FCfs, 30:4. FCmsp, 30:4. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:3. FTR, 574. FAlbR, 180-81. FP, 495. FAlz, 10:4. FAln, 594. FH, f. 82r. FZ, 612. FBa, 673. FI, 642. FAlr, f. 95v. FUb, 54D. MS8331, 694. FBe, 896. "Fuero de Milmanda," 2:181. FLlanes, 1:117.

43.  "FLeón y Carrión," 49. The ambiguous word here is mancipium, which could mean youth or servant in the context of exemption. The Santarém family insists males must be of age to free their mothers from taxes through service (see Appendix A). FCfs, 30:6. FCmsp, 30:6. FCcv, 3:14:5. FP, 497. FAlz, 10:6. FAln, 598. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 614. FBa, 675. FI, 646. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54F. MS8331, 696. FBe, 899. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 319. FBrihuega 1256, 183. FFuentes de la Alcarria, 18:391. The Coria Cima-Coa family defines the age of coming to military manhood at twenty years. FA, 284. FCO, 282. FCR, 4:24. FCM, 155. FCA, 281. FCB, 281. FU, 289. "Jaime I, rey de Aragón, preside Cortes en Villafranca, 24 junio 1218," 1:36-37. "Jaime I, rey de Aragón, reune Cortes en Barcelona, 21 diciembre 1228," 1:207. FLedesma, 264-65. "Fuero de los escusados o franquicias de Arévalo, 1256," 1:267-68. "Alfonso X el Sabio confirma los fueros extensos de Cuéllar," 43. "FVilla Nova d'Alvito," 2:48. Siete partidas, 2:19:3. Duran i Sanpere, "Defensa de la ciutat," 312-13. The age range is 13 at the Cortes of Villafranca, 14 at the Cortes of Barcelona and in the Siete partidas, 15 at Ledesma, 16 at Cuéllar, 18 at Arévalo and 20 at Alfaiates, Coria, Castel Rodrigo, Castello-Melhor, Cáceres, Castello-Bom and Usagre. Villa Nova did not specify an age of maturity, but rather noted that the young heir of a knight should perform some task appropriate to his position to succeed to his father's position, a notion possibly derived from the spread of Roman law.

44.  FCfs, 30:3, 31:2-3. FCmsp, 30:3, 31:2-3. FTL, 426, 448. FAlbL, 485, 493-94. FCcv, 3:14:2, 3:15:1-2. FTR, 573, 612, 614. FAlbR, 180, 190. FP, 494, 529-30. FAlz, 10:3, 10:68-69. FAln, 593, 645, 647. FH, ff. 82r, 87r-87v. FZ, 611, 672-73. FBa, 672, 727. FI, 641, 697. FAlr, ff. 95v, 101v. FUb, 54C, 55B-55C. MS8331, 693, 735. FBe, 895, 968, 970. FViguera y Val de Funes, 50. "Fuero de Benavente", 2:626. FMilmanda, 2:181. FLlanes, 1:117.

45.  FCfs, 31:2. FCmsp, 31:2. FTL, 448. FAlbL, 493. FCcv, 3:15:1. FTR, 612. FAlbR, 190. FP, 529. FAlz, 10:68. FAln, 645. FZ, 672. FBa, 727. FI, 697. FAlr, f. 101v. FUb, 55B. MS8331, 735. FBe, 968. FVH, 543. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 286. FViguera y Val de Funes, 50. FA, 190a. FCO, 182. FCR, 3:55. FCM, 126. FCA, 184. FCB, 187. FU, 187. Alfaiates does not mention the time lag to reach the mustering point.

46.  FEstella, 1:145. FCfs, 30:3, 31:3. FCmsp, 30:3, 31:3. FTL, 426, 448. FAlbL, 485, 493. FCcv, 3:14:2, 3:15:2. FTR, 573, 613. FAlbR, 180, 190. FP, 494, 529. FAlz, 10:3, 10:69. FAln, 593, 646. FH, ff. 82r, 87r-87v. FZ, 611, 673. FBa, 672. FI, 641. FAlr, ff. 95v, 101v. FUb, 54C, 55C. MS8331, 693. FBe, 895, 969. FVH, 543. FBenavente, 2:626. FMilmanda, 2:181. FLlanes, 1:117. FViguera y Val de Funes, 50. FBrihuega 1256, 188. FFuentes de la Alcarria, 18:395. Siete partidas, 2:19:3. The Siete partidas also add another excuse not foreseen in the fueros, that of being unable to serve due to the weather or the elements.

47. "FLeón y Carrión," 49.

48.  FEstella, 1:145. FViguera y Val de Funes, 50. FA, 362. FCO, 281. FCA, 280, 344. FCB, 280, 352. FU, 288, 353. Alfaiates lacks the reference to the wife's death or recovery and Coria lacks the reference to the certification of the three witnesses.

49.  FBenavente, 2:626. FLlanes, 1:117. FA, 283. FCO, 281. FCR, 4:24. FCM, 154. FCA, 280. FCB, 280. FU, 288.

50.  FCfs, 30:62, 31:3, 43:17. FCmsp, 30:58, 31:3, 43:12. FTL, 448, 544. FAlbL, 493. FCcv, 3:14:36, 3:15:2, 4:13:12. FTR, 613, 780. FAlbR, 190, 235-36. FP, 527, 529. FAlz, 10:62, 10:69, 12:64. FAln, 639, 646, 815. FH, ff. 86v, 87r-87v, 112v. FZ, 666, 673, 840. FBa, 721, 727, 908. FI, 691, 697, 874. FAlr, ff. 101r, 101v, 126v-127r. FUb, 54E", 55C, 92. MS8331, 731, 735, 747. FBe, 959, 969. FVH, 539, 543. FA, 362. FCA, 344x. FCB, 352. FU, 353. FAlfambra, 35. "Foral de Seia," 1:177. The Évora-Ávila family includes such a law (see Appendix A). "FInzura," 58. "FLaguardia 1208," 81. "FBurunda," 85-86. "FViana, 1219," 417. "Fueros y privilegios de Aguilar, 1219," 159.

51.  FJaca 1076, 3-4. FEstella, 1:87. FCA, 182. FU, 185. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 288. Alcalá required the permission of such a substitute. It may have been necessary in all cases involving hiring. FCfs, 30:4. FCmsp, 30:4. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:3. FTR, 574. FAlbR, 180-81. FP, 495. FAlz, 10:4. FAln, 594. FH, f. 82r. FZ, 612. FBa, 673. FI, 642. FAlr, f. 95v. FUb, 54D. MS8331, 694. FBe, 896.

52.  "FNájera," 2:84-85. FMolina 1156, 74. FBenavente, 2:626. FCfs, 30:4. FCmsp, 30:4. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:3. FTR, 574. FAlbR, 180-81. FP, 495. FAlz, 10:4. FAln, 594. FH, f. 82r. FZ, 612. FBa, 673. FI, 642. FAlr, f. 95v. FUb, 54D. MS8331, 694. FBe, 896. FMilmanda, 2:181. FLlanes, 1:117.

53.  FA, 284. FCO, 282. FCR, 4:24. FCM, 155. FCA, 281. FCB, 281. FU, 289. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 287. FLedesma, 264-65.

54. FSepúlveda 1076, 48. Unlike the basic military service requirement in this charter which is similar to that of the contemporary charters of Nájera and Jaca, no similar precedent exists for the contribution principle, thus allowing for the possibility that this may have been added to the twelfth-century copy of Sepúlveda's Latin fuero which we possess. Fuero de Guadalajara 1137, 11. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 284. The contribution for service excuse concept reappears in the 1300 charter of Sepúlveda. FSepúlveda 1300, 91-92, with a rather more elaborate list of items to be contributed.

55.  FBenavente, 2:626. FMilmanda, 2:181. Fuero de Zamora, 40. FParga, 16:652-53. FLlanes, 1:117. FToro 1222, 2:536. "Fueros dados a León por el rey Fernando III, 1230," 2:315. FLedesma, 264, 279. FSanabria, 13:286. Benavente and Sanabria clearly indicated that it was the fonsado service from which the excused were being freed, and Milmanda, Parga and Llanes are so similar in their wording that the same conclusion would have to be applied to them. Zamora, Toro, Leon and Ledesma possess excuse lists less similar to the other five towns, but the highly analogous wording to the other Leonese examples would seem to indicate that service exemptions must be the category under discussion. Yet in Laguna de Negrillos (c. 1205) it is fonsadera that citizens are exempted from in the alcalde grants and the tent contributions. "Fuero dado por Alfonso IX a la puebla de Laguna de Negrillos," 2:177.

56.  FA, 111, 179-80. FCO, 110, 171-72. FCR, 6:14, 8:18. FCM, 243, 316. FCA, 117, 175. FCB, 106, 176-77. FU, 119, 176-177. The excuses tend to cover about half as many knights as peones in these charters. The fueros also distinguish between town residents (vecinos) and residents of the nearby countryside (aldeanos). Alfaiates, Coria and Castello-Bom permit the excuses to go only to aldeanos; Castel Rodrigo and Castello-Melhor allow town-dwelling knights to have excuses; Cáceres and Usagre prefer the excused to be aldeanos, but will accept vecinos if there is an insufficiency of aldeanos to claim them. Smiths who make a specific number of plowshares per year are also exempted from fonsado service. The number was fifteen in all of the charters save Cáceres and Usagre, where thirty were required. The same grantor of many of these fueros, King Alfonso IX of Leon, also gave Ledesma a charter which includes an ambiguous reference to excuses which were in all probability excuses from service, given the awarding of this principal to so many contemporary towns in Leon. FLedesma, 279-80.

57.  One reference in Sepúlveda suggests the possibility of excuses being retained for later use, although offering no indication of the extent of time or the number which might be collected. FSepúlveda 1300, 92. "Et qui con los escusados se adobare fasta quanto oviere a aver, finquese en paz. Et se de su casa quisiere fazer su missión, a la venida aya todos sus escusados."

58.  Fuero de Guadaljara (1219), Keniston ed., 9. "Cavallero que oviere cavallo e armas de fust e de fierro e toviere casa poblada en la villa non peche e sea escusado." Since there would be little sense in having a fully equipped knight in a town if you exempted him from service, this is presumably a redundant way of stating the caballero's right to tax exemption.

59.  FArévalo 1256, 1:267. "Privilegio del Rey D. Alfonso X, concediendo a la ciudad de Burgos, 1256," 1:97-98. "Privilegio del Rey D. Alfonso X, concediendo al concejo de Buitrago," 1:93-94. "Privilegio de Rey D. Alfonso X, concediendo a la villa de Peñafiel, 1256," 1:89-90. "Privilegio del Rey D. Alfonso X de Escalona, 5 marzo 1261," 1:178. "Libro del fuero real y franquezas de Madrid, 1262," 9:53. "Privilegio del Rey D. Alfonso X, concediendo a Valladolid," 1:225.

60.  FArévalo 1256, 1:267. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FValladolid, 1:225. FBa, 916. FI, 885. FUb, 96. MS8331, 769. In these charters knights receive four such excuses when they serve in the king's expedition, except at Escalona where two are awarded.

61. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. "Crónica del rey don Alfonso décimo," 66:10. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. Ordenamiento para Reino de Extremadura, Alfonso X, 1264, Mss 9-21-7, 4032, Núm. 4, ff. 6-7. "Alfonso X de Castilla, a petición de los habitantes de las villas de Extremadura, desagravia a los de Cuéllar, 1264," 62-64. FValladolid, 1:225. "Privilegio del rey D. Alfonso X, eximiendo a los caballeros fijosdalgo de Sevilla y a los ciudadanos que tuvieren caballo y armas, del servicio de moneda," 1:293. "Privilegio del Rey D. Alfonso X, en que condonando a la villa de Aguilar de Campo," 1:314-15. The ordenamientos to Cuéllar, Aguilar and Extremadura include only bread providers. Sevilla covers young women, their dueñas and shield bearers.

62.  Riquer, L'arnès de cavaller, 11-48. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour in Spain, passim. Palomeque Torres, "Contribución al estudio del ejército," 15:239-40.

63.  "Forum Judiciorum," 9:2:6. "Fuero juzgo," 9:2:6. FSepúlveda 1076, 48. "FNájera," 2:84-85. Sepúlveda gave exemptions for helmets and link armor jackets to any knight who supplied them for others to wear in battle. Nájera required the infanzón ranked nobles resident in the alfoz of the town to provide weapons when they served in the supply and wood gathering anubda.

64.  "FLeón y Carrión," 49. "Fueros de Sobrarbe," 13:31-35. FPena-Ruiva, 1:551. FLárraga, 1:508. FMendigorría, 87. FMiranda de Arga, 10:270. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 284. FCórdoba Lat, 3:223. FCórdoba Rom, 3:213. FCarmona, 7. FAlicante, 46. FLorca, 81-82. Repartimiento de Sevilla, 2:138. FArévalo 1256, 1:267-68.

65.  "FNájera," 2:84-85. FBenavente, 2:626. FMilmanda, 2:181. "Convenio del rey con los vecinos de Calatayud, 1208," 8:104. FGuadalajara 1219, 9. FParga, 16:652-53. FLlanes, 1:117. FLedesma, 279.

66.  "FPalenzuela, 1074," 274-75. FEscalona 1130, 45:465. FGuadalajara 1137, 109-11. "Recopilación de los fueros de Toledo," 45:474-75. FGuipúzcoa, 3:225. "Fueros de población de Toledo dado a los muzárabes y castellanos, 1222," 314. FCórdoba Lat, 3:221. FCarmona, 4. FAlicante, 42-43. FLorca, 78.

67.  Ximenius de Rada, "De rebus Hispaniae," 177.

68.  FEscalona 1130, 45:465. FGuadalajara 1137, 109-11. "Recopilación de los fueros de Toledo," 45:475. "Fuero de Alba de Tormes," 337-38. FToledo 1222, 314. FCórdoba Lat, 3:221. FCarmona, 4. FAlicante, 42-43. FLorca, 78. FBrihuega 1256, 188.

69.  FGuadalajara 1219, 9. "Privilegio otorgado por D. Alfonso X a Ávila, 1264," 2:492-93. Ordenamiento de Extremadura, 1264, Madrid, ff. 6-7. "Alfonso X a las villas de Extremadura, desagravia a los de Cuéllar, 1264," 62-63. "Provisión del Rey D. Alfonso X a Madrid, Sevilla, 27 agosto 1264," 1:64. FValladolid, 1:226-27. FFuentes de la Alcarria, 18:391. Ordenamiento que fizo el Rey D. Alonso en el Corte de León; Este es el Fuero de los fijosdalgo, MSS 1.3081, ff. 267-68. "Fuero viejo de Castilla," 1:293.

70.  "Fuero de Berrueco Pardo," 77-78. FA, 55. FCO, 70. FCR, 4:9. FCM, 141. FCA, 77. FCB, 71. FU, 79.

71.  "FPalenzuela, 1074," MyR, 274-75. Palenzuela had the earliest reference to such equipment, but survives only in a later confirmation by Alfonso X. Without any other contemporary support for this early instance, one tends to assume that it is a later addition. FAlfambra, 36. FZorita 1180, 421, where only saddle and arms are specified. The Cuenca-Teruel group listed the sword, lance and occasionally the shield as knightly weapons, but used booty shares rather than tax exemptions as the stimulus to assure that the knight brought these items to combat. FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 595. FH, ff. 82r-82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 643. FAlr, ff. 95v-96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 897. However, Teruel and Albarracín have a separate law specifying the possession of the shield, helmet, lance and sword to secure the exemptions. Possibly this was understood in the Castilian members of the family as well. FTL, 10. FTR, 8. FAlbR, 7. FArtajona, 249. FMendigorría, 87. Artajona and Mendigorría free the knight from the contribution of forced hospitality (hospitem, huépedes) for their contribution. FGuadalajara 1219, 9. "Fuero de Uclés, c. 1227," 14:334. FLedesma, 264. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285. "Fuero latino de Cáceres," iv-v.

72.  "FÁvila, 1256," 2:491. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FCuéllar 1256, 43-44. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-99. FBuitrago, 1:93-95. Some kind of breast-plate and a Muslim adarga shield substitutes for the mail jacket here. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-91. Fuero de Trujillo, MSS 430, f. 50r. "El fuero de Atienza," 68:267-68. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178, 180. FMadrid 1262, 9:53, 55. Ordenamiento de Extremadura, 1264, ff. 6-7. "Alfonso X a las villas de Extremadura, desagravia a los de Cuéllar, 1264," 62-64. FValladolid, 1:225. "Infante don Manual confirma a Elche sus privilegios," 32. Privilegio de Sevilla, 1:293. Privilegio de Aguilar de Campo, 1:314-15. Not all taxes must have been included in the knightly exemption, since this class also received exemption from the martiniega land tax (collected presumably on March 20, the feast of St. Martin of Braga) whenever they served that year in the royal expedition in all of these charters.

73.  FCfs, 22:13. FCmsp, 22:13. FTL, 224. FAlbL, 447. FCcv, 3:6:7. FTR, 249. FAlbR, 81. FAlz, 8:66. FAln, 481. FZ, 462. FBa, 537. FI, 535. FAlr, ff. 78v-79r. FUb, 43\. MS8331, 464. FBe, 697-98. FVH, 496-97. See cover illustrations and Plates 2b and 2d.

74.  Sánchez-Albornoz offers a 1034 reference to this word in his "El precio de la vida en el Reino de Asturleonés," 2:845. The 1076 charter to Sepúlveda starts a long series of municipal references to the loriga. FSepúlveda 1076, 48. FEscalona 1130, 45:465. "Recopilación de los fueros de Toledo," 45:475. "Annales D. Alfonsi Portugallensium regis," 157-58. FAlfambra, 33. FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 597. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 645. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 898. FA, 180, 352. FCO, 172. FCR, 8:18, 41. FCM, 316, 339. FCA, 175, 336. FCB, 177, 343. FU, 177, 345. "Renovación de fuero de Yanguas despues del año 1192," 4:89. FZamora 1208, 40. FToledo 1222, 314. "Fueros que dió a Molina el Infante D. Alfonso," 47. FCórdoba Lat, 3:221. FCarmona, 4. FAlicante, 42-43. FLorca, 78, 81. FLedesma, 279-80. "Fuero viejo de Castilla," Códigos españoles, 1:293. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. FFijosdalgo, ff. 267-68. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:23:8, 2:26:28. FSepúlveda 1300, 91-92. Menéndez Pidal, Cantar de mío Cid, 2:736-38. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 170-78. De Riquer, L'arnès, 18-20, who notes that the Castilian word loriga was replaced in Catalan sources by asbergo or ausberg save possibly for horse armor. For body armor in Al-Andalus, see Nicolle, Early Medieval Islamic Arms and Armour, 62-66, 77-80.

75.  FAlfambra, 33. FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 597. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 645. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 898. FA, 180. FCO, 172. FCR, 8:18. FCM, 316. FCA, 175. FCB, 177. FU, 177. "Fueros que dió a Molina," 47. FSepúlveda 1300, 91-92. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 170-78.

76.  FSepúlveda 1076, 48. FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 597. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 645. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 898. While Teruel, Albarracín and Iznatoraf employed the term almófar, the remainder of the Cuenca group use the variants elmo and yelmo in this place. FCO, 172. FCA, 175. FCB, 177. FU, 177. Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:458-61. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 176-79.

77.  Sánchez-Albornoz, "El precio de la vida," 2:845. FAlfambra, 36. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. FSepúlveda 1300, 91. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:23:8. Alvar, "Estudio lingüístico y vocabulario," 772.

78.  FCO, 172. FCA, 175. FCB, 177. FU, 177. FAlz, 8:66. FAln, 481. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 462, 613. FBa, 537. FI, 535. FAlr, ff. 78v-79r. FUb, 43\. MS8331, 464. FBe, 697-98. Huete and Zorita include brofuneras in the section on booty shares, while Alcaraz, Alarcón, Zorita, Baeza, Iznatoraf, Alcázar, MS 8331 and Béjar cite it in connection with dueling equipment for both knights and foot soldiers. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. FSepúlveda 1300, 91. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:26:28.

79.  FCórdoba Lat, 3:223. FCórdoba Rom, 3:213. FCarmona, 7. FAlicante, 46. FLorca, 82. Gómez de la Torre, Corografía de Toro, 105. "Carta de Alfonso X concediendo al concejo de Ciudad Rodrigo," 1105. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:23:8, 2:26:28.

80.  Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 170-72. De Riquer, L'arnès, 20-22. Alvar, "Estudio," 695. Corominas, 1:655-56. Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:533.

81.  FAlfambra, 33, 36. FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 10, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 8, 575. FAlbR, 7, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 597. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 645. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 898. FCO, 112, 172. FCR, 8:13. FCM, 311. FCA, 177. FCB, 108, 177. FU, 179. FArtajona, 249. FMiranda de Arga, 10:270. FMendigorría, 87. FLedesma, 279-80. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285. "Fueros que dió a Molina," 47. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:26:28.

82.  "FPalenzuela, 1074," MyR, 276. "Annales D. Alfonsi Portugallensium regis," 157-58. FMolina 1156, 84-85. FAlfambra, 33, 36. FCfs, 22:13, 30:5. FCmsp, 22:13, 30:5. FTL, 10, 224, 426. FAlbL, 447, 485. FCcv, 3:6:7, 3:14:4. FTR, 8, 249, 575. FAlbR, 7, 81, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 8:66, 10:5. FAln, 481, 595. FH, ff. 82r-82v. FZ, 462, 613. FBa, 537, 674. FI, 535, 643. FAlr, ff. 78v-79r, 95v-96r. FUb, 43\, 54E. MS8331, 464, 695. FBe, 697-98, 897. FVH, 496-97. FCR, 8:18. FCM, 316. FArtajona, 249. FMiranda de Arga, 10:270. FMendigorría, 87. "Carta de población de Salvatierra, 1208," 8:99. FUclés c.1227," 14:334. FLedesma, 264, 279-80. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285. "Fueros que dió a Molina," 47. FCampomayor, 499-500. "Costumes de Garvão communicados d'Alcácer," 2:80-81. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. FSepúlveda 1300, 91. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:26:28.

83.  Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 179-85. De Riquer, L'arnès, 22-23. Nicolle, "Islamic Arms and Armour," 97-106. Neuvonen, "Los arabismos del español en el siglo XIII," 10:130-31. Riaño, Industrial Arts in Spain, 88-90. Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:651-55. The Fuero de Ledesma specified the hide of a horse, ox, mule or ass for a leather shield. FLedesma, 246.

84.  Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 168-69. De Riquer, L'arnès, 23-26. Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:728-29. For interesting views of the lance in East-West combat, see Nicolle, "The Impact of the European Couched Lance," 10:6-40. González, Repartimiento de Sevilla, 1:175.

85.  "FPalenzuela, 1074," 276. "Annales D. Alfonsi Portugallensium regis," 157-58. FMolina 1156, 84-85. FAlfambra, 33, 36. FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 10, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 8, 575. FAlbR, 7, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 595. FH, ff. 82r-82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 643. FAlr, ff. 95v-96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 897. FA, 181. FCO, 173. FCR, 8:18, 8:51. FCM, 316, 349. FCA, 176. FCB, 178. FU, 178. CPSalvatierra, 8:99. FUclés," 14:334. FAlba de Tormes, 292. FSalamanca, 95. FLedesma, 264, 279-80. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285. "Fueros que dió a Molina," 47. "Fuero de Badajoz," Diego Suárez de Figueroa, ed., Historia de la ciudad de Badajoz (Badajoz, 1916), 73-74. Costumes d'Alcácer, 2:80-81. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. FSepúlveda 1300, 91. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:23:7, 2:26:28.

86.  FCcv, 3:14:4. FP, 496, here called a razcona. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 595, here called a pediero. FH, ff. 82r-82v. FBa, 674, here called an escato. FI, 643. FAlr, ff. 95v-96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 897. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:23:7, 2:26:28. Corominas, 1:348-49, 2:110-11. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 170.

87.  González, Repartimiento de Sevilla, 1:175. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, "From Medieval Sword to Renaissance Rapier," 2:5-25. Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 160-68. De Riquer, L'arnès, 25. Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:658-68. PCG, 2:404, 517-18.

88.  FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 595. FH, ff. 82r-82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 643. FAlr, ff. 95v-96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 897. FUclés," 14:334. FLedesma, 264. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:26:28. Most of the Cuenca-Teruel family do permit the peón to use the sword in a duel. FCfs, 22:13. FCmsp, 22:13. FTL, 224. FAlbL, 447. FCcv, 3:6:7. FTR, 249. FAlbR, 81. FBa, 537. FI, 535. FUb, 43\. MS8331, 464. FBe, 697-98. FVH, 496-97.

89.  Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, Arms and Armour, 168. Corominas, 1:965. FCfs, 22:13, 30:5. FCmsp, 22:13, 30:5. FCcv, 3:6:7. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 595. FH, ff. 82r-82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 643. FAlr, ff. 95v-96r. FUb, 43\, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 897. FVH, 496-97. FAlba de Tormes, 292. FSalamanca, 95. Siete partidas, 2:23:7, 2:26:28.

90.  Virtually all medieval military historians agree on this point. Probably the best explanation for the lack of interest by the northern European feudality in acquiring archery skills can be seen in the twelfth and thirteenth century romances. Here a strong disdain for missile weapons as unchivalric and a distaste for oriental mounted archer cavalry as encountered on the Crusades can be noted, possibly laced with a small degree of fear. Hatto, "Archery and Chivalry: A Noble Prejudice," 35:40-54.

91.  FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 595-96. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 644. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 898. FCO, 112. FCR, 8:13. FCM, 311x. FCA, 177. FCB, 108. FU, 179. "Privilegio en que el rey (Jaime I) sanciona los estatutos de Daroca, 1256," 35-36. The requirement was two cords for archers mounted and unmounted in all places, along with thirty arrows or bolts in Daroca, sixty in the Coria Cima-Coa family, and one hundred for foot and two hundred for knights in the Cuenca-Teruel charters. The Espéculo required one hundred and fifty arrows of both classes and gave both the same booty share in exchange. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:23:7, 2:26:28.

92.  At Murcia and Jérez they seem to have been a class separate from both caballeros and non-archer peones. "Privilegio rodado de Alfonso X a los pobladores de Murcia, 14 mayo 1266," 1:19-20. Sopranis, Historia de Jérez, 43-54. "(Foral de) Miranda da Beira, 1136," 1:373. FLouzã, 1:287. For the Santarém family, see Appendix A. FPedrogam, 1:531. FSabadelhe, 1:584. The later Portuguese collections of municipal customs note that archers should possess bows and demonstrate their ability with the weapon to maintain their status. Costumes d'Alcácer, 2:80-81. "Costumes e foros de Beja," 2:66. "FEscalona," 45:465. FAlicante, 52-53. The Muslim archers of Viseo prior to its capture by Fernando I in 1055 had a formidable reputation for the penetration power of their arrows which was picked up by a number of Christian chronicles. Supposedly their arrows could pierce a shield and then three thicknesses of mail, and Fernando had his soldiers reinforce their shields with wooden planks to counter the effect of the Muslim arrows. Crónica Najerense, 97-98. Historia Silense, 188-89. Lucas de Túy, Chronicon Mundi, 348. Ximenius de Rada, De rebus Hispaniae, 125. Whether this had any impact on the high regard of the future kings of Portugal for archers and their status remains a matter of conjecture.

93.  Cagigas, Los Mudéjares: 207. Ximenius de Rada, "De rebus Hispaniae," 185. PCG, 2:701. Huici Miranda, Estudio sobre la campaña de las Navas, 102-03. I hope in the near future to examine this problem in greater detail in a published study.

94.  "Flatino Cáceres," v. FCO, 179. FCA, 182. FCB, 184. FU, 185. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285. FUclés," 14:334. Alcalá and Uclés also required spurs. FSepúlveda 1300, 91. FMolina 1156, 77. FAlfambra, 36, which demanded two saddles. FZorita 1180, 421. FTL, 10. FTR, 8. FAlbR, 7. "Fuero de la villa de Palenzuela, 1220," 218. A male horse was specified here. FLedesma, 264.

95. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FCórdoba Lat, 3:223. FCórdoba Rom, 3:213. FCarmona, 7. FAlicante, 46. FLorca, 81-82. FArévalo 1256, 1:267. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:179. FMadrid 1262, 9:54. FValladolid, 1:225. FSepúlveda 1300, 92. Espéculo, 3:7:14. Siete partidas, 2:26:28. "Llibre dels feits del Rei En Jaume," 153-54.

96.  The minimum cost of a horse varied from town to town. From the late twelfth century through the later thirteenth century these minimums varied from twelve to thirty maravedís. FAlfambra, 36, 30 m.. FTL, 10, FTR, 8, FAlbR, 7, all 200 solidos. "FAlcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 285, 20 m.. FUclés," 14:334, 12 m.. "Flatino Cáceres," v, 15 m.. "Fernando III confirma y traslada el fuero de Toro dado por Alfonso IX, y concede uno relativo a los caballeros, 1232," 2:564-65, 20 m.. FMolina 13c, 47, 20m.. FÁvila 1256, 491. FCuéllar 1256, 43. FArévalo 1256, 1:266. FAtienza, 68:267. FTrujillo, f.50. FBurgos 1256, 1:97-98. FBuitrago, 1:93-94. FPeñafiel 1256, 1:89-90. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:178. FMadrid 1262, 9:53. FValladolid, 1:225. Of this latter group, Ávila's minimum was 20 mvds., and the remaining towns were set at 30 mvds..

97.  Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:582-84. Jaime Oliver Asín, "Origen árabe de 'rebato,' 'arrobda,' y sus homónimos," 15:372-89. Gonzalo Menéndez Pidal, Los caminos en la historia de España, 42-43. Garca Gómez, "Armas, banderas, tiendas de campaña," 32:170-73. For a basic evolution of scholarly thought with regard to the stirrup, the couched lance and the feudal charge, see: White, Medieval Technology and Social Change, 1-38. Bachrach, "Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and Feudalism," 7:47-75. Nicolle, "The Impact of the European Couched Lance," 10:6-40.

98.  "FNájera," 2:85. FBenavente, 2:626. FA, 180. FCO, 172. FCR, 8:18. FLaguna de Negrillos, 2:177. FCM, 316. FCA, 175. FCB, 177. FU, 177. FMilmanda, 2:181. FZamora 1208, 40. FAlba de Tormes, 337-38. FParga, 16:652. FLeón 1230, 2:315. FLedesma, 279-80. FArévalo 1256, 1:267. Privilegio de Escalona 3-5-1261, 1:179. FMadrid 1262, 9:54. FSanabria, 13:286. FValladolid, 1:225. FSepúlveda 1300, 91-92. Coria, Castello-Bom, Cáceres and Usagre stipulated that the supplier should add twenty cords for the support of the tent, while Sanabria described its tent as a tienda cabdal, indicating that the size of the tent should be substantial. Alba de Tormes did not put the tent in a campaign context, but placed it in a category with the horse and arms of a knight as items which should be inherited collectively by a son from a father. Alvar, "Estudio," 797. Menéndez Pidal, Cid, 2:866-67. Among the examples in Escorial T.I.1, Cantigas 28 and 165 are representative.

99.  FCfs, 30:5. FCmsp, 30:5. FTL, 426. FAlbL, 485. FCcv, 3:14:4. FTR, 575. FAlbR, 181. FP, 496. FAlz, 10:5. FAln, 597. FH, f. 82v. FZ, 613. FBa, 674. FI, 645. FAlr, f. 96r. FUb, 54E. MS8331, 695. FBe, 898. FUclés," 14:329. Alarcón specified a chain of 200 links without mentioning collars, and Uclés noted neither links nor collars. In all of the fueros of the Cuenca-Teruel family a booty share was given for the contribution of a chain, while at Uclés a fee of three maravedís was given.