Page:MS V.b.104 121v.png

to be victorious? It maye be saide that the five well ronners sholde have victorie for that they were the greatest nomber, againste whome it was alleadged there were two of their fellowes vnhorsed thorough the virtue of the aduersarie, & therfore the losse sholde light on that side, because there is no greater dishonnor in actsof armes then to fall from horsback. ffor althought a man at armes hath all daye ronne faire & orderlie yet yf in thende he fall, no prise or honnor shalbe allotted vnto him. Therfore the reproch due vnto those two that were vnhorsed doth blemish the commendacion that the other five well doers on that side deserued. On the contrarie it was alleadged, that forasmuch as five companions of those ij best doers had verie evell performed their parts wth losse of manie launces. That therfore they were in worst estate, then they, havinge but two fellowes overthrowne. wherfore the aduersaries well doers beinge in nomber but two & they five the honnor ought to be theirs as a greater nomber of well doers. vppon wch consideracon of wch arguments it semeth that thease in respecte of the evell perfourmaunce of the five on the aduersaries parte wolde have the glorie of the other two to be no honnor at all. This doubt is to be decided cheiflie by men at armes rather then by Ciuilians or Philosophers. Yet my opinion is that the contrarie partie of those that were ouerthrown ought to be victorious, for that to fall from horsback is in the exercise of armes (as erst I saide) a most reprochfull acte, wherin appeareth viletie of minde, & lack of skill in ridinge and (death except) the greatest dishonnor that can happen to a gentleman professinge armes. Notwthstanding yf mine opinion shall not satisfie in this behalf? The Iudge maye put downe a Iudgement more certeine.