But war on a large scale was impossible in the feudal age.  The military glory of the Roman conquerors was unknown, and also that of modern European monarchs.  The peasant was bound to serve under the banner of a military chieftain only for a short time:  then he returned to his farm.  His great military weapon was the bow,—­the weapon of semi-barbarians.  The spear, the sword, the battle-axe were the weapons of the baronial family,—­the weapons of knights, who fought on horseback, cased in defensive armor.  The peasant fought on foot; and as the tactics of ancient warfare were inapplicable, and those of modern warfare unknown, the strength of armies was in cavalry and not in the infantry, as in modern times.  But armies were not large from the ninth to the twelfth century,—­not until the Crusades arose.  Nor were they subject to a rigid discipline.  They were simply an armed rabble.  They were more like militia than regular forces; they fostered military virtues, without the demoralization of standing armies.  In the feudal age there were no standing armies.  Even at so late a period as the time of Queen Elizabeth that sovereign had to depend on the militia for the defence of the realm against the Spaniards.  Standing armies are the invention of great military monarchs or a great military State.  The bow and arrow were used equally to shoot men and shoot deer; but they rarely penetrated the armor of knights, or their force was broken by the heavy shield:  they took effect only on the undefended bodies of the peasantry.  Hence there was a great disproportion of the slain in battle between peasants and their mounted masters.  War, even when confined to a small sphere, has its terrors.  The sufferers were the common people, whose lives were not held of much account.  History largely confines itself to battles.  Hence we are apt to lose sight of the uneventful life of the people in quiet times.

But the barons were not always fighting.  In the intervals of war the peasant enjoyed the rude pleasures of his home.  He grew up with strong attachments, having no desire to migrate or travel.  Gradually the sentiment of loyalty was born,—­loyalty to his master and to his country.  His life was rough, but earnest.  He had great simplicity of character.  He became honest, industrious, and frugal.  He was contented with but few pleasures,—­rural fetes and village holidays.  He had no luxuries and no craving for them.  Measured by our modern scale of pleasures he led a very inglorious, unambitious, and rude life.

Contentment is one of the mysteries of existence.  We should naturally think that excitement and pleasure and knowledge would make people happy, since they stimulate the intellectual powers; but on the contrary they seem to produce unrest and cravings which are never satisfied.  And we should naturally think that a life of isolation, especially with no mental resources,—­a hard rural existence, with but few comforts and no luxuries,—­would