| Author |
Message |
|
Alina Boyden
|
 Posted: Mon 27 Sep, 2004 11:51 pm Post subject: Great Swords or lack thereof |
 |
|
I was looking for information about Type XIIA and TypeXIIIA greatswords and more specifically how they were carried. Did they use scabbards or were they carried around like the two handers of the Renaissance?
Interestingly, I looked through as much of the Maciejowski bible as I've been able to get my hands on and found not one reference to a type XIIA or XIIIA in any of the pictures. I also searched the entire Codex Manesse (c. 1300) and came up with only one example of a man swinging a sword with two hands and that sword appeared to be made for single hand use.
However, on a side note, the Codex Manesse contained many other fascinating pictures such as armorers at work, men at war, hunting scenes, siege warfare, and an incredibly good example of an I.33 shieldknock in a tournament setting. Still, no great swords...
|
|
 |
 |
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Sep, 2004 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both types were carried in scabbards at the waist. There is period illustrations and artwork that provide documentation. In The Sword in the Age of Chivalry. pg 45, Oakeshott provides a line drawing that is taken from the Tenison Psalter, and is dated before 1284. Oakeshott also provides documentation in the form of an Apocalypse of St. John made circa 1300-1310, that illustrates another "Grete sword" being worn at the waist. Finally, he gives another illustration taken from the canopy of the tomb of Edmund Crouchback, Westminster Abbey, 1296. This also shows the sword carried at the waist in a scabbard.
Oakeshott does point out that while there are numerous contemporary observations of swords being carried at the saddle bow, there are no physical illustrations of these types being carried in that fashion, either in manuscript or effigy. I would suspect that the Grete Sword was carried at the waist and the shorter single-handed sword was carried on the saddle. The single-hander would have been of more use from horseback, where as the hand-and-a-half would have been used primarily on foot. (although these types certainly can be, and undoubtedly were used from horseback) Logic would dictate the if a knight was forced to fight on foot he may have needed to do so, or been forced to it, in a rather abpupt fashion. Consequently, the weapon he would use while afoot would be the one he would want physically attatched to himself.
Here's an outstanding example of a modern recreation of just such a scabbard.
http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/baron-scabbard.htm
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
  |
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Sep, 2004 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Alina,
There is more on the Baron scabbard here as well:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1858&highlight=
As mentioned, this type is seen frequently-- on XIIA's and XIIIA's (more frequently with the latter as they are more widely represented in art).
Patrick's post reminds me that I had promised some more photos of the Baron scabbard... I'll have to do that soon.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alina Boyden
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Sep, 2004 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
How I forgot to check Albion's scabbards is beyond me. Still, its nice to know the period documentation that these designs come from. However, I'm still a bit concerned about the prevalence of the type XIIA and XIIIA. Every folio that showed men fighting that I have looked through shows type XII swords. I think I saw one type XIV but all the rest seemed to be XII's with varying hilt components. Usually the hilt is disc pommel and straight crossguard but I saw a couple of examples of cocked hat pommels, etc. So, why aren't the great swords in most of the period documentation? Are they regionally more popular in England than on the continent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Sep, 2004 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alina Boyden wrote: | | How I forgot to check Albion's scabbards is beyond me. Still, its nice to know the period documentation that these designs come from. However, I'm still a bit concerned about the prevalence of the type XIIA and XIIIA. Every folio that showed men fighting that I have looked through shows type XII swords. I think I saw one type XIV but all the rest seemed to be XII's with varying hilt components. Usually the hilt is disc pommel and straight crossguard but I saw a couple of examples of cocked hat pommels, etc. So, why aren't the great swords in most of the period documentation? Are they regionally more popular in England than on the continent? |
The Types XIIa and XIIIa seem to have been developed in the european areas of Germanic influence, so they really aren't indigenous to England. Many of the swords in the Mac Bible can either be considered Type Xs' or XIIs', depending on the length of the fuller as illustrated by the author, and etc. While period manuscripts and artwork are an excellent source they should not be considered imperical. Judging why the artists chose to illustrate particular weapons can be an endless debate. They may have been types that the artists had seen or had experience with, or simply the ones that fit best into the illustration. Examining the number of surviving specimens and where they were found is a much more accurate means of determining a types range of use. These large "Swords of War" are commonly mentioned in period texts, and a good percentage of them have survived to the present. It's obvious that their use was widespread.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alina Boyden
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Sep, 2004 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
The Types XIIa and XIIIa seem to have been developed in the european areas of Germanic influence, so they really aren't indigenous to England. Many of the swords in the Mac Bible can either be considered Type Xs' or XIIs', depending on the length of the fuller as illustrated by the author, and etc. While period manuscripts and artwork are an excellent source they should not be considered imperical. Judging why the artists chose to illustrate particular weapons can be an endless debate. They may have been types that the artists had seen or had experience with, or simply the ones that fit best into the illustration. Examining the number of surviving specimens and where they were found is a much more accurate means of determining a types range of use. These large "Swords of War" are commonly mentioned in period texts, and a good percentage of them have survived to the present. It's obvious that their use was widespread. |
That's a good point. Historiography is something that is all too often neglected in the history of anything. Clearly, the authors of the manuscripts had their own experiences and agendas, and clearly the sample they chose to portray in the manuscripts is by definition not representative of the weapons in use at the time. Still, I find the widespread archaeological evidence of the great swords but the paucity of manuscript sources interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Sep, 2004 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alina Boyden wrote: | | Patrick Kelly wrote: |
The Types XIIa and XIIIa seem to have been developed in the european areas of Germanic influence, so they really aren't indigenous to England. Many of the swords in the Mac Bible can either be considered Type Xs' or XIIs', depending on the length of the fuller as illustrated by the author, and etc. While period manuscripts and artwork are an excellent source they should not be considered imperical. Judging why the artists chose to illustrate particular weapons can be an endless debate. They may have been types that the artists had seen or had experience with, or simply the ones that fit best into the illustration. Examining the number of surviving specimens and where they were found is a much more accurate means of determining a types range of use. These large "Swords of War" are commonly mentioned in period texts, and a good percentage of them have survived to the present. It's obvious that their use was widespread. |
That's a good point. Historiography is something that is all too often neglected in the history of anything. Clearly, the authors of the manuscripts had their own experiences and agendas, and clearly the sample they chose to portray in the manuscripts is by definition not representative of the weapons in use at the time. Still, I find the widespread archaeological evidence of the great swords but the paucity of manuscript sources interesting. |
Yes, it is an interesting issue. When you think about it the same thing can be seen in our modern world. Today the firearm has replaced the sword, and there are a myriad of types currently in use, and on the market. However, in popular entertainment only a few of these types are routinely represented. This doesn't mean that they're the only ones in use. It just means that they're the ones that the producers found available, photogenic, sexy, or what have you. I wonder if future historians will ask your question a few hundred years from now, in regards to firearms?
Interesting.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic