HOME | DD
Drocan — Medieval Misconceptions
by
Published: 2006-12-08 06:15:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 6265; Favourites: 121; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
Heavy, cumbersome swords- The issue of weight seems to be one of the most commonly mistaken aspects of medieval combat. Smiths all made swords slightly differently and each fighter had his own preferences. It is impossible to generalize when it comes to the technology of an entire continent from c/ 500-1500 AD, and both very heavy and very light swords existed. In terms of what was typical, though,, here’s a rough guide to averaged:
Single-handed sword (aka sword) - 2.5 pounds
Hand-and-a-half (aka bastard sword) 2.5-3 lbs
Two-hander (aka longsword) - 3 to 3.5 pounds.
The absolute largest swords still rarely hit the 5-pound mark. These were designed to serve very specific tactical functions on the battlefield and were not intended for general-use purposes. Experience showed smiths and warriors that this was the ideal weight range for their weapon. It’s essentially natural selection at work: people whose swords were too light or too heavy went off to battle and didn’t come back. Those with properly weighted swords did. Any heavier and it becomes unwieldy. Any lighter and it lacks the momentum to hit with sufficient force.
Conversely, most Japanese Swords weighed slightly more than European swords relative to their length. Once again, though, keep in mind that this is not a bad thing, nor does it imply that they were slow or relied on brute strength over skill. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the sword's weight gives the fighter the power he needs so he can devote his muscle to technique. Light swords are not very effective when it comes to penetrating any armor, be it plate, chain, or leather. (Fencing foils and other ultralight weapons only came about after gunpowder caused armor to die out, and the heavier two-handers hit their prime when armor was at its fullest.)
In practice, the weight variation is not significant enough that it would make a noticeable difference in combat, but it is there. The Japanese smith would face the exact same system of natural selection as the European one, but due to different environmental conditions the result came out slightly different.
Heavy and cumbersome armor
- A full suit of high quality plate armor weighed on average 55-65lbs. Though there was variation based on the technology available from one century to another or according to one's financial means, this remains a decent rule of thumb from the legionnaires of ancient Rome to knights in full plate to modern Marines. The logic is the same as it was for determining the weight of a sword: You want as much protection as you can possibly afford without it becoming unwieldy. For a well-trained, fit man this limit is around 60 lbs.
There are records in the Middle Ages of people in full plate (i.e. 1350 and later) being able to climb ropes, roll, cartwheel, and even jump onto their horses without using the stirrup. Modern tests confirm these reports.
There are stories about knights needing cranes to get on their horse, or needing squires to help them if the fall on their back. Neither of these stories have any real historical basis. If armor were such a liability, nobody would have worn it, let alone spend a fortune on it. The very fact that it exists in number and for such a long time is proof enough that it is better than going unprotected.
Fighters with swords on their backs
-It is physically impossible for a human to draw a straight, average-length sword from their back while in its sheath. A sword worn on the back is usually curved or short. Cases of back-sheaths were virtually unheard of in Europe and rare elsewhere. (In those cases, the swords were very short. A Roman Gladius or modern machete would still be too long to draw with any degree of comfort.) A fighter might plausible wear a sword in this manner if he had absolutely no intention of fighting any time soon, since it is arguably easier to move around and sit down without it getting in the way.
Archers with quivers on their backs
-This is almost the same as the previous misconception, but it is even more common to hear about. Arrows can be gripped in the middle and are thus possible to draw, but the motion is much more slow and awkward than a draw from the hip, or even better, by sticking the arrows into the ground ahead of time. That being said, images of quivers are still extremely rare in medieval artwork and were simply not used in combat situations in Medieval Europe. Speaking of archers…
Fast and slim medieval archers
- A quality longbow back in the middle ages was made of yew or ash, and needed to have an effective range of up to 300 yards and enough power to penetrate mail. A bow that meets these requirements is going to have a draw weight of somewhere between 120 - 180 pounds. That's like lifting a grown man with three fingers. If anything, an archer was likely to be bigger and stronger than the frontline soldiers. Excavations reveal that the skeletons of medieval archers were permanently warped from the strain of such repeated and imbalanced muscle stress. They did not wear much armor only because archers were never nobility, and therefore couldn't afford any.
Shiny, battle-ready swords
- No matter how well polished, high-carbon steel (the metal swords were made of) just isn’t all that shiny. A common metal for modern decorative swords is stainless steel, which is conveniently rust resistant as well as attractively bright. It is also very hard. Which seems like a good thing, until your realize that so is glass. A real medieval sword has to be able to bend slightly in order to help absorb shock, and a sword that is too hard will be rigid and more prone to snap or shatter. A harder sword can keep a nice straight cutting line and hold an extra sharp edge better, but it also runs the risks mentioned above. The Japanese sword was developed in a less armor-intensive environment, so they can afford to place less emphasis on durability in favor of a keener edge. Often, Japanese swordsmanship techniques involve "using the opponent's energy against them." This is partially because it is an effective technique, but it is also to protect the weapon from taking too many direct hits.
Related content
Comments: 97
Really good! Someone had to say that and you did!
A question/misconception I also hear often is that you cannot move in a full plate armour (for any reason). Then I tell the people that you would be dead in seconds during a battle when wearing such an armour
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Interesting, but many of its ideas are limited to European knighthood. Islamic soldiery tended to be more likely armed with a short bow, and mounted on horseback. And the Asian nomads, typified by the late-Mediaeval Mongols, often used a compound bow that was lighter (and therefore more useful on a horse/pony), but harder hitting, than any shortbow equivalents.
Actually, the longbow was almost exclusively an English (Welsh) weapon. Continentals used more crossbows.
And the matter of cranes used to hoist knights onto horses did exist, but only at the extreme of the full-armor era, and then usually only in tournaments. That late armor was battlefield impractical. Of course the other detail that Hollywood usually gets wrong - the horses were not modern thoroughbreds, but heavier workhorses that could stand the weight. Not fast, but in mass very dangerous.
As you might guess, I, too, have my B.A. in History, although not Mediaeval, and I read extensively still, some forty-odd years since graduating. One of my favourite periods is Plantageanet England, all three hundred plus years of it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Hi, you're right in that I'm pretty eurocentric. It's where my background is so that's where I focused, although I think it's fair to try to contain it to one major culture just for the sake of focus. While I did add archers to the list as well as knights, I would love to expand to include other soldiers as well (touching on, perhaps, how even amongst knights the sword was a sidearm and not the main weapon). But you're right in that there's a lot I haven't covered!
I think you mean composite, as the compound bow relies on a pully and cam system that wouldn't be developed until the 20th century. They were more mechanically efficient to be sure, and lower draw weights could achieve the same energy transfer. However, the glues they used don't hold up well in moisture which I believe is why we see them in the dry steppes but not in the damp western areas. Crossbows were very common outside of england, though, and it's another thing I need to think of adding to the list.
I will contest you on the crane thing. Even in the late period of armor (which I would argue is past the end of the middle ages anyway) there is no evidence I am aware of to support the crane theory. We do know jousting armor was built heavier as were armors that tried to stop bullets, but even then, while we have evidence for stepstools and squires helping out, I would need to see a primary source before I accept the crane theory.
Additionally, historical war horses were much smaller than the ones hollywood usually uses. Most animals were, but the horse in particular is a very strong animal and the extra 60 or so pounds doesn't require an upgrade to a draft horse. If people needed something to do heavy lifting, they used oxen. Those big horses we see today are a result of modern breeding. This one is one of the easiest to get evidence for as we have lots of paintings and descriptions of horses from the period. All horses were strong enough to support the battlefield knight so maneuverability and agility were the priority. Another thing to add to the list!
Thanks for giving me so much more to think about, I appreciate it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're right about the bows, composite is what I meant. As to using cranes to put heavily armoured knights on horseback, my sources indicate that that was a Victorian Era invention, both anachronistic and false. The use of heavy armour was only very late in the era (Think 15th and even 16th centuries). My real trouble with Hollywood depictions is that they pretend to use thoroughbreds, which didn't even exist until the 1700's, and first in England. My real point was that the danger in a knight's attack on horseback was from mass, not speed, which only worked in Europe (or where there was no mounted opposition). Asian horses were smaller, and quicker, and could, and did, just get out of the way (after which the mounted bowmen could be devastating).
But dismounted armoured knights were unwieldy, and were not infrequently dispatched by a knife in the face (after the helmet was opened. Think Crecy and Agincourt.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you make a good point about the horses. It is more about mass, although since pretty much any horse is big enough to act as a wrecking ball through an infantry line, no reason to get a massive one. Once the charge is done they need to get out of there and regroup, flank or whatnot, so maneuverability is still important. Looks like whether we're talking about Europe or Asia, people today think of horses as being a lot bigger than they really were back then.
I don't think dismounted knights are especially unwieldy (speaking of late medieval full plate, say early 15th c). There was a pretty elaborate martial arts system that revolved around swords, daggers and wrestling and we have a few surviving manuals that help explain it to us. Johannes Liechtenhauer and Fiore Deil Liberi are our two main sources and I have had the pleasure of giving armored combat demonstrations using many of their methods. You did mention one of the best ways to dispatch an armored knight, but I promise in a sparring match with someone of equal skill but without armor, where I could hit them pretty much anywhere to win but for them to win they had to pin me down, take of my helmet and then hit me, I would claim the match easily nine times out of ten. I'm not a real knight and that's not necessarily an accurate battlefield simulator, but I'll just say that if armor were so unwieldy as to be a liability, I doubt people would have spent their fortunes and bet their lives on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This was a very informative and interesting read. I'm currently working on a fantasy type of story, so I'm definitely saving this onto my computer for future reference. I'll certainly keep this in mind when creating the world and everything. Although there will be magical elements, I would like to keep things at least semi realistic. I will try to make it as accurate as I can, and this is certainly helpful. So thank you for writing this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course! Fantasy is great but you have to know what you're changing and keep things internally consistent. Just because someone can shoot fireballs doesn't make spiked armor any more practical. I think realism has a place in even the most high-fantasy stories.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. I plan to have a knight that has a little bit of magic, but she's still going to have good, practical armor. A little extra power doesn't excuse her from being a smart fighter. And no sensible knight is going to go into battle without being properly prepared. This guide will certainly help to have a sense of realism about the story. I was thinking of having my knight carry her sword on her back, but apparently that's not the best idea. I need to keep that in mind when designing her.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like this. I've also spent too much time being annoyed by fantasy and its seeming disregard of historical precedent, and so when I decided to write a story that some might call fantasy (which wouldn't be entirely accurate, since there's no magic or weird creatures involved), I decided that I would do it right. Thanks for writing this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad you enjoyed it! I have to be honest, re-reading it after getting my degree in medieval history makes me think I should have avoided speaking in absolutes. It's very dangerous for a historian to assume there was just one "correct" way things were ever done. However, even with a few extra years of study under my belt I think it holds up in a general sense and would be useful for writers looking to keep their stories believable.
Good luck on your story!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm a military history buff, so seeing these common misconceptions put into context was really helpful.
I saw some comments about another one on tactics. I'm not sure if you plan on doing another post about that, but I picked up The Renaissance at War by Thomas Arnold and it's really great in that regard: lots of full-color formation maps, descriptions, even charts of how much gold and other supplies a typical army of the time would need to campaign. It's pretty great for a layman like myself who isn't majoring in history
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll take a look. I've been thinking of doing a follow up or "part II" of this for a while so I'll see if that book has anything to add. I would also like to start citing my sources in future versions so I'm not just another voice on the internet with an opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can pick it up pretty inexpensively (around $15) on Amazon, which is a really great deal when you consider all the illustrations and maps involved.
Citing sources is always a plus. Nothing gets history writers in trouble faster than sloppy source citations, except of course for straight-up lying... Assuming you have time, a series of articles in this vein would be extremely helpful to all the medieval history enthusiasts and budding fantasy writers here on DA.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about the army itself? For instance, in most movies and books I read about always involve a massive army of knights or trained warriors or experienced mercaneries. But in reality, it was yes a hundred or so knights(you can't risk many noblilty), five hundred mercaneries, and about a thousand of so recruited fiefs or peasants with make shift weapons and leather armor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think the main concern was risking too many nobles so much as the intense cost of fielding a knight that kept the number down. Risk was mitigated by adding armor, not by removing them from the field. But because of this, they were definitely a minority on the field and played a very particular role, typically as mounted shock troops, so it would be good to mention what else is going on in the army. I'm keeping tabs on suggestions and observations like yours and I'll try to include them in my eventual sequel to this list.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is also the case of the typical full frontal assult in fantasy movies and books. In reality it would be the mounted shock troops that would act to break the morale and formation, then mop up the remaining soldiers with the infantry. Though this was a tactic, that probably wouldn't work as the tatics would change as the battle would.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Absolutely. I was going to do a segment about open, pitched battles in my next one, since the reality is they were pretty rare. The vast majority of medieval battles were sieges or raids. The main logic being, what's the point? If you win, you've gained control of a flat plain and a lot of people died. Not as enticing as a castle, city, or loot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I really like fantasy books and, to be honest, is my favorite genre to write about. However, I am more curious than passionate about medieval times and near to where I live there is a very interesting medieval fair every summer.
However, what I want to say, is that, even though I like fantasy so much, I always believed that a sense of realism is very important to the genre and I try to keep things close to reality. This said, I found this "guide" very useful! The weight of swords, armors and the facts about archers are cool and some of it new information for me.
Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! I do love fantasy, but the reason things were the way they were is more often than not the result of hundreds of years of trial and error. They built swords and used bows that way because it was the most efficient design and technique. So when developing a fantasy world, just think logically. Whether you're in 14th century France or Narnia does not change the fact that it is either highly inefficient or flat-out impossible to draw a longsword from your back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There where a few things wrong. You can wear a large sword on your back, just not with a scabbard. It rests in a halbard with a hook like prong to hold the quillion. 2nd, functional swords can be shiny. Look in my gallery for the piece titled "my baby". Tempered carbon steel, made to be used, and has been used. But it is shiny cause I take care of it. As for the rest, spot on. Finally someone to help educate people who think movies are history.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You could theoretically wear a sword on your back like that. I would question its usefulness, however. Possible indeed, but I can't see any reason it would be preferred over a hip suspension. It also has no historical basis which also raises questions as to how practical it would be. However, I will admit that I was too extreme in my phrasing, and will adjust my article accordingly.
As to point number 2, while I much prefer to base my arguments in historical fact, no swords have survived in good enough condition to tell how shiny they were. That point was simply made from personal observation, based on fairly extensive time looking around at the high-end reproduction market, notably companies with a reputation for authenticity, such as Albion ltd. But because I don't know for a fact, I would be glad to admit fault if I learned I was wrong. I looked at the piece you described, and would like to learn a little bit about it. Where did you get it, and how do you take care of it? I know I maintain my tempered carbon steel equipment very well, but it doesn't take on a mirror polish by any means. I would love to know your method for achieving that unique finish. Also, am I reading the photo correctly in assuming that the hilt and first few inches of the blade have a typical steel finish, and it becomes suddenly reflective only after that until the end of the blade? I just want to make sure I'm looking at the picture correctly.
I have been meaning to go back and cite my sources for all of these points so they carry more weight than just being the opinion of some guy on the internet. Critique like this really helps, and this particular article has been constantly evolving thanks to feedback and my own ever-increasing research. I appreciate your help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In regard to historical fact, the Scots where known to where their claymores back strewn as no arm is long enough to draw it. Also a Flamberge can not be sheathed. These are exceptions to rule I guess as they seldom ever had scabbards for swords of this size. As to my sword, I got it from Museum Replicas (.com). Shine can be achieved simply by polishing any blade. The hilt, quillion, pommle and blade are all carbon. There is no stainless on it. I have to clean and polish weekly otherwise surface rust sets upon it like a hoard of Pagans. Museum Replicas actually studies historical museum pieces to make their fully functional replicas (thus the name). I look forward to further response and dialoge with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The large swords you are talking about were indeed rarely found with scabbards because of their size, and it would be hard to wear a sword like that on your hip. However, wearing it on the back would be no more practical. Historically, swords like these were carried resting on the shoulder, like a workman carries his shovel or soldiers carry rifles when on parade march. More commonly, however, they were carried in a cart while on the move, and retrieved before the battle. If you can come up with historic evidence for the example you gave of the scots I am more than willing to listen, but I have found no such references, either literary, archaeological, or artistic.
Additionally, I am afraid that MRL actually has a very poor reputation for historical accuracy. I don't think their steampunk selection was based on museum research, for one, but even their so-called historic gear is based much more frequently on movies than on museum pieces. That does not mean the quality is low, necessarily. From what I gather they use sturdy metal and efficient, stable construction. From a design standpoint, however, I am familiar with that business and I assure you they do not perform extensive research of surviving pieces when creating their blades. That is more of an aside, however. Perhaps on of the misunderstandings came from a definition of shiny? I am referring to a mirror finish when I say this. Of course any well-maintained metal will reflect light, but carbon steel will always have a duller sheen to it than stainless. If you have found an alternative technique, I am still interested in the specifics of your maintenance habits.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The best way I have found for maintaing a mirror finish is to use very fine sandpaper. I use the stuff they use in Autobody repair. When you get fine enough it polishes more than it sands. I remember reading one time that Vikings would use beach grass with sand to clean their swords. The princaple still holds but with better quality materials. I keep my sword coated with rust preventive spray for firearms, but when the surface rust starts I lightly rub with the ultra fine paper and a little extra spray. I also use a high end polish made for mirror surfaced injection molding equipment called "Simichrome".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Throughout the middle ages the most common cleaning method was some sort of oil (varied depending on time period and geographic region) and sand. The vikings didn't have oil available, but they came up with a similar process. The method you employ seems a little more complex, and I can't speak for most of those materials from experience, so it could very well produce a different end product. Am I correct in thinking that your mirror polish stops a few inches from the hilt? The hilt and first inch or so of the blade resemble the finish I'm most used to seeing on carbon steel, but the rest of the blade seems very shiny indeed. Is that a trick of the camera or is that how the sword really looks?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No trick. The entire blade is shiny. Only the hilt and pommle have a slightly duller finish. The ricasso didnt seem as shiny in the picture cause it does not have the bevel that the blade does so the light reflects differently. Part of the reason the blade is so shiny is in part due to the fact that it was not forged. It was (at least I suspect) cut by laser from a stock piece of forged carbon steel. All in all though, it has turned out to be a great sword. It has awsome flex and balance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
lol. The pointy ears and pixie skirts with corsets was why I quit Ren fairs after my first one. My mistake was thinking they were like middle age markets. I had a hard time keeping my pre-teen's eyes in his head and answering all my toddler's questions about what people were wearing/doing. At SCA events around my area, most are respectably covered and enjoy watching a lady fencer fight in proper lady attire. We are mostly swords, daggers, cloaks, and bucklers at events since (as you mentioned) foils and epees were predominantly after the time frame of SCA.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The SCA certainly does not focus on authenticity as I have learned over the years, but it is a great opportunity for people to gather together who really care about what they do, whether it's recreating a specific activity of a specific period, or just what they perceive to be "medieval-ish" without research. The SCA doesn't regulate that sort of thing, but the people are in general more enthusiastic, while at ren-fairs it's more like a fantasy convention. I would advise against assuming that everything (or even most things) at SCA events are accurate. Rather, get to know the individual people, and it should become clear fairly quickly where their priorities lie. (Hint: people who are into historical accuracy will mention specific centuries and regions, i.e. "knights in 14th century France" vs. "people in the middle ages")
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
@ Drocan You didn't mention many European single edged swords like a grosse messer. or Italian falchion. Or the fact that European metallurgy was light years ahead of Japan.
Jousting armour was placed on your body after you mounted your horse. There never was a crane for the joust.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for your input. Adding the European single-edged blades to the list is a great idea, since what most people think of as the Arabian falchion more closely resembled the German weapons. And certainly some Italian designs too, as you mentioned. I'll have to include that in my sequel.
With jousting armor the crane idea was certainly never true, but whether jousting armor needed to be assembled on-horse largely depends on both stile and date. Before the 14th century jousting armor differed minimally from combat armor, but during that period of transition (in so many other areas as well) specialized jousting armor did come into play.
As for European versus Japanese metalworking technique, I'm not sure I completely agree. While the stiffness of Japanese swords made them less able to absorb shock and therefore more likely to shatter, the steel itself was every bit as strong, chemically speaking. But because shields and metal armor were used less, their swords dd not need to hold up to the same amount of stress, and energy was better spent on other design elements, like holding an edge. Even in both of these areas, however, the differences are slight and all comparative cutting and stress tests are only slightly in favor of one or the other. I have seen European swords handle tatami excellently, as have I seen katana hold up to a fair bit of stress before breaking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes the later the date the more armour used in the lists.
As far as the Japanese swords go they live on a little volcanic island with poor ore deposits. A friend of mine is a sword smith and makes such swords. The reason for all the folding and welding is to burn out all the shit in the steel like copper and other impuritys. Also it forces all the metal to have the same chemistry throughout. Like 1% carbon for the cutting edge. In my experience they are inferior.
I'm working on a grosse messer in my smithy with two twisted damascus cores and 5160 for the edge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for this information.
I started to do LARP a year ago and to play as authentic as possible in a fantasy setting these facts are very helpful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm more into Medieval Asia(7th century onwards) but I have to say that from my vantage point, Medieval European armies relied more on heavy units whereas central and eastern Asians use technology and mobility as a path to victory.
That's why I'm not exactly sure if you can actually compare the Katana with the Zweihander in a head-to-head battle in terms of function. The Katana's purpose was to slice the enemy down while the Zweihander, because of it's heavy weight, relies more on the wielder to slam the sword downwards. Overall, it's more of speed vs. power if you're comparing weapons of the two worlds and a big reason why Europe failed epically during the Crusades was because almost all Saracen troops carried curvy, Damascus, swords. It's easier to handle and much more effective than a European straight-blade weighing 15-20lbs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The two handed sword was not a sword shaped sledgehammer. I do not slam down so much as thrust and cut side to side much like a long sword. It a complicated martial art. My sword of war is 7lbs. I have never seen a sword that is 20lbs. I make damascus swords and can tell you they are no better then what the knights used.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Relied more on technology? I don't know what you mean by that. Every warrior of any region always strived to have the most up-to-date weapons and equipment available to him. Arguably eastern cultures relied less on technology given that in Japan many still held onto their samurai lifestyle long after gunpowder became commonplace.
Also, you are right in that comparing the Katana to the Zweihander is nigh impossible, which is why I instead compared it to a typical European sword that would have been used on a much more regular basis than a regionally specific specialty weapon. And insofar as the Crusades were concerned, the Christian defeat was not a result of inferior technology, but rather misplaced technology. It was the best at what it was designed to do, but fighting in the desert was not a part of that design, which lead to heatstroke on a massive scale and greatly reduced effectiveness in battle. Scimitars were indeed easier to handle than Zweihanders (thought saying that Damascus supplied the entire Middle East is a stretch). "More effective" depends entirely on what they are being used for. It is also true, however, that almost all Crusaders carried swords of comparable weight and handling characteristics to Muslim weapons. The only army in which the Zweihander would have comprised even a noticeable percentage would have been that of the Holy Roman Empire during the 3rd Crusade, and that never even made it to the Middle East due to Barbarossa's death.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ARGH this is brilliant!
You dont know how many times iv had to stress to people these points!
you are a hero amongst men
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So glad you like it. I'm working on a sequel that should touch on subjects like duel wielding, the use of shields, and armies meeting on open fields, as well as some less military-related subjects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wonderful! Its great your clearing up all this for people theres so many myths its hard to them from reality. Your doing us history nuts a great service
I look forward to you submitting it !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. I'm a history major with a concentration in medieval Europe, so it's a serious hobby of mine.
I should probably be more professional and start citing my sources, though. There are a lot of people who pretend to know what they're talking about, and it would definitely help establish credibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow!Medieval europe is my favourite im currently studying the bolsheviks and not appreciating it...its so boring
Yeah maybe, still damn good work though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kwl. very well written, with constant reference to facts.
one thing kinda confuses me though; you say that soldiers could perform cartweels and leap cleanonto their horses, but there are records of french cuirassiers in the napoleonic wars who, once they fell from the saddle, were stuck as they were. the cuirassier wore just a breastplate, although it would need to be heavy enough to stand up to musket fire. how does this figure?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Napoleonic is a good deal beyond medieval, so there are a few differences. First off, the knight would be trained as a soldier from age seven, and his training would be devoted to use of armor and skill in horsemanship. The average person would not be able to perform that sort of move. The point I was trying to make is not that a person was as agile in armor as out of it. That would be very much untrue. What I meant was that a person who trained in full armor could be as mobile.
The main difference in the cases of Napoleonic soldiers could partially be attributed to less training, but since they were also professionals, it can be assumed that they were probably relatively fit, so the bigger reason would likely be the makeup of the armor. After gunpowder became popularized in the late 14th century, armor saw a decline in usefulness. There was an attempt to counter this by thickening the armor until the statements on mobility made above no longer applied. Weight and fit were crucial, and there were indeed some instances of soldiers who stole armor off bodies and then found themselves in that sort of turtle-like position. If properly weighted and fitted however, this would likely not be the case. There is certainly an exception to every point I made about swords, armor, and the people who used them, but a well-made sword, a well-fitted harness and a well-trained soldier should be able to fall under those examples I provided.
Thanks for the input, and it was interesting comparing it to post-medieval sources.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like this.. good points you have made. I'm into the medieval period myself. Some of the above facts are new to me to some degree (in detail of bows and statistics of the like). I did think at least some archers were quick and some carried short bows, but then again that's me in my fantasy-like state of mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well it would have happened, of course. I couldn't possibly speak for 100% of all warriors in any sense. However, what I'm saying is that the majority were, and that being strong was preferred to being fast. Also, short bows did certainly exist, but they were often used on horseback rather than unmounted, and most of the unmounted shotbowman did so only because their technology was not up to par with that of English longbowmen, who were generally accepted to be the most effective in history. So in both those cases, they did happen. I'm not saying that my statement was true in all cases, I'm just saying that the archer for whom it was true was in a better position than if it weren't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was thinking that. About short bow wielders on horseback at least. Nice analysis though. I'm quite interested in medieval literature and am planning on including these realistic concepts. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad to hear it. If you're going with historical fiction, then obviously historical accuracy is important. However, even if you're doing fantasy, the unrealistic parts should be the magic and the dragons, not the way people wear their weapons. Good luck with your literature. Hopefully I'm not the only resource you use! Another sequel I'm planning on involves medieval hygiene, dual wielding, shield use, and epic battles in open fields.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>