Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why only cutting swords in the age of maille? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 5:10 pm    Post subject: Anothe data point..         Reply with quote

This web site gives the number of noble families within France. http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/noblesse.htm Near the bottom it shows that there were only 365 noble familes of knightly origin during the 1400's. There could be several knights within a family, but a number much beyond 2000 knights goes beyond credibility. In large scale battles, the knight cavalry units would be a small fraction of the total. Similarly, inventory of armor production rate does not support the idea of the average foot soldeir being well armored.
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 8:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Anothe data point..         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
This web site gives the number of noble families within France. http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/noblesse.htm Near the bottom it shows that there were only 365 noble familes of knightly origin during the 1400's. There could be several knights within a family, but a number much beyond 2000 knights goes beyond credibility. In large scale battles, the knight cavalry units would be a small fraction of the total. Similarly, inventory of armor production rate does not support the idea of the average foot soldeir being well armored.


Thats not what the webpage says. It lists the orging of the noble families of today's France,

Quote:
The decomposition of today's noble families in terms of origin is as follows (Séréville and Saint-Simon):

1) pre-1789

nobility of knightly origin (14th c.) 365
nobility of ancient origin (15th c.) 434
nobility of origin (16th c.) 801
ennobled by Letters Patent 640
ennobled by office 1010
annexed territories, foreign nobility 244

Total nobility of pre-1789 origin 3494


Furthermore not all warriors serving as 'knights' had the title knight, they could be squires, esquires, ecuyers or non-noble men-at-arms, gendarmes and so on. The French fielded huge numbers of 'knights'/men-at-arms during the hundred years war as well as before. You mentioned Poiters, in that battle the Anglo-Gascon army fielded 3000 men-at-arms (ie 'knights') 2000 mounted archers and 1000 bidowers and brigans (light infantry) While the French had at least 8000 men-at-arms and 3000-4000 crossbowmen and brigans.

Armor production rates a problem? Nope! Arms and armour was mass produced and rulers bought thousands of sets of armour at a time when needed. At a single market in Bruges in 1295 representatives of Philip the Fair bought equipemnt for several 1000's of men in a single purchase, I'll provide the entire list later today.
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 9:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On the nature of cavalry charges:

Shock cavalry have been documented as far back as Alexander the Great’s Companion Cavalry. Alexander personally led these men in decisive charges at the Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. In each case, the charge was through the Persian line, and in the later two battles was directed against Darius III personally. The Macedonian phalanx is famous, but Alexander used cavalry to win his battles.

The Parthians won at Carrhae by use of their horse archers. However, those horse archers were supported in a critical manner by Parthian heavy cavalry. The heavies dispersed the Roman cavalry when it tried to chase off the unarmoured horse archers. The threat of a heavy cavalry charge is what kept the legions huddled together in a “can’t miss” target. The Romans also faced the heavily armed and armoured cavalry of the Sarmatians and Alans. According to Arrian, the Romans didn’t dare to face the cavalry charge in the standard legion formation, but regressed to a shield-wall like the Saxons at Hastings. The Romans were sufficiently impressed by these troops that they established their own cataphracts and clibanarii. When Justinian decided to re-conquer the western part of the Empire, his (very small) armies were based on cataphracts. Under the brilliant leadership of Belisarius and Narses, these armies won North Africa and Italy.

All of the above actions precede the use of the stirrup.

Courage and discipline are the two key qualities that infantry need to stand a cavalry charge in the open. Courage is pretty obvious, but discipline is equally crucial. If the foot do not stand together they will lose. That was the fate of the Anglo-Saxon right wing at Hastings, which broke ranks to chase the Norman cavalry down Senlac hill, and was caught in loose formation when the cavalry rallied, turned, and cut them down.

If the foot present a solid tight formation, it seems the horses will come to a halt just in front of the obstacle. Occasionally, a horse will plunge into the foot line (for example, if the horse is wounded and in pain), but this is exceptional. If the spears waver, the line doesn’t seem solid, it is more likely that a horseman or two will urge their mounts into the gap, and then the foot are in trouble. This is a key psychological point. If all the infantry stand tightly together, they are safe. But, if a hole develops anywhere in the formation, the whole unit is compromised. And when an infantry unit falters in front of cavalry, the first men to run get furthest away from the enemy, while the last men to run are usually the first infantrymen to die. So, once a unit begins to crumble, it is extremely hard to save the situation.

How could things go wrong for the infantry? I think that fatigue, attacking (breaking discipline), fear (losing courage) and trying to move are the most likely causes. At Hattin, for example, the Christian defenders were not overcome by the masses of Muslim attackers (and all the armies of the Latin East were infantry heavy, although the mounted knights formed a critical strike force, whereas the Muslims had a great superiority in horse archers), but heat, lack of water, and brush fires combined to make the Christian position untenable. They lost even though their position couldn’t be overrun. As mentioned above, at Hastings the Anglo-Saxon foot attacked and were severely handled. At Cassel the same thing happened to the Flemings. For three days, they tried to get the French knights to charge them, but the French had learned from Courtrai, and refused. Finally the Flemings launched their own, surprise attack. They did get into the French camp, but the French rallied around King Philip’s presence, and repelled the Flemings with considerable loss. The last two causes (fear and moving) are related. If the infantry are demoralized, individuals may try to exit the battlefield; if the commanders see a problem (for example, the horsemen are receiving foot reinforcements of their own, or may encircle the infantry command) they may try to pull the whole infantry force out together. This is extremely difficult. The fighting retreat has long been regarded as the supreme test of a commander, and this is still harder when the enemy has superior mobility. One of the few instances in Napoleonic warfare of cavalry breaking a square (Garcia Hernandez, 1812) occurred when a French infantry square was trying to retreat cross-country from a surrounding British cavalry force. In medieval times, to move would have required putting up the spears and shields, and shuffling off in the face of enemy knights, at a time when close order drill and cadenced marching were unknown. Really good foot could do this: Richard Lionheart’s march to Ascalon is a classic demonstration, although is needs to be pointed out that the Muslim horse had relatively limited shock capability, and the Crusader foot were supported by an elite force of knights, and an outstanding commander.
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 9:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yunker (https://portfolio.oit.duke.edu/retrieve/3143/middle+ages+art+of+war+essay.doc.) has written quite a good essay, but there are a couple of distinct errors. On the third page he says that medieval soldiers were not paid. This is nonsense. It is true that the prospects of pillaging and ransoms did play a large part in motivating soldiers, but they were often compensated on a regular basis. During the months prior to Hastings, the Saxon fyrd that waited for his invasion were paid, so as to make up for the time lost from their farms. Most of our knowledge of the armies of the Hundred Year’s War comes from payrolls and contracts for raising soldiers – at specified wages. Later, Yunker rather emphasizes the ritualized nature of medieval warfare, and says that wars were not waged to annihilation. Close reading of medieval wars shows a lot of pragmatic, amoral actions, as well as the ritualized ones. For example, a besieger might round up hostages, and threaten to kill them if a castle did not surrender. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn’t. There are night surprise actions like Otterburn. The killing of the French prisoners at Agincourt was both unchivalric but also unprofitable. As for annihilation, the Albigensian crusade is a pretty fair example of extermination. Very few wars in any period are actually about annihilation – World War II was exceptional.

The survival rates of horse and foot are directly related to their mobility, and not necessarily the way they fought. Fleeing infantry are slower than pursuing cavalry, and will be cut down in large numbers. The social classes in the Middle Ages sharpened this difference, as knights were often worth ransoming, and infantry usually weren’t worth the trouble.
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 10:27 pm    Post subject: armorours for 1000s of men         Reply with quote

I am interested in a factual and logistical type of depiction of how a real army would have been equipped. Please do post the follow up, and any detail regarding total size of the army if you can determine it.

I have been studying with ARMA, which trains mostly in unarmored judicial type long hilted (8" plus grip length) longsword training. I have a few bloodied knuckles from todays' sparring session as I type. The texts studied within this group generally advocate very aggressive tactics. A pair of combatants will generally never take a retreating step, and close to within grappling/ wrestling distance if the first one or two sword strokes do not decide the outcome. This seems more appropriate to mercenary soldiers who would be in the high fatality rate, front line situation. I have tried very hard to identify surviving long hilted longswords similar to what is shown in period text fechktbuk artwork, and it they are simply not found in significant quantities in surviving examples.. I am near reaching the conclusion that this type of agressive sword work is not of knightly/ nobility class, but more towards the mercenary soldier tactics. If my deduction is correct, these long hilted swords may have been recycled and not saved as noble family relics.

I have always loved the ideal of a chivalrous knightly class doing armored combat, but am not sure if this was what really represented most of the time spent by knights, or the majority of a medieval battlefield. Some accounts of extended campaigns seem to illustrate a tactic of raiding and pillaging villagers, and avoiding full up combat. This makes some political and economic sense, but at some point a decisive confrontation would seem unavoidable.

Mass armor production would also be a phenomenal topic for this forum. Some period inventories account for less than a dozen pieces of a typical item (helm, curiass, etc.) within a single shop. Number of 1300's shops in Nuremburg was estimated at 20 at one web site I saw. Given several cities, a few thousand soldiers/knights could be well outfitted. I doubt that full harness is what this really represents, but am totally open to input from those who have studied this longer than I have (about 3 months...)

Jared Smith
View user's profile Send private message
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni


myArmoury Alumni

Location: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Reading list: 72 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The number of knights in an army varied during the ages and in some cases it eas at least 1/3 of the total number of soldiers. Here are some numbers form J.F. Verbruggen's book the "Art of Warfare in the Middle Ages". these are credible numbers as they are supported by the logistics of the period warfare and by several reliable sources (not everybody tended to exaggerate in the middle ages). "NA" means unknown. This regards the crusader army.

Date------ Battle----------------# of knights------------------------------ # of foot soldiers
1098------Lake Antioch--------700-----------------------------------------NA
1098 -----Antioch----------------500-600-----------------------------------NA
1099------Ascalon --------------1200----------------------------------------9000
1101------Ramala---------------260------------------------------------------900
1102------Ramala---------------200------------------------------------------NA
1102------Jafa--------------------200------------------------------------------NA
1105------Ramala---------------700-----------------------------------------2000
1119------Athareb----------------700-----------------------------------------3000
1119------Hab---------------------700------------------------------------------NA
1125------Hazarth----------------1100----------------------------------------2000

this is form Kelly deVries book "Infantry warfare" (same format)

1302------Coutrai (the french)---3000-------------------------------------4000-5000
1302------Courtai (the Flemish) ---0---------------------------------------7300-11000

there are more numbers but I am too tired to go dig them out. the catch is that I am only including numbers agreed upon as feasible. Just for example, some period chroniclers listed the French army at Coutrai in the 20 000's Happy So only for some of the battles one can find reliable resources to use when assigning numbers to the army sizes.

I hope that helps

Alexi
View user's profile Send private message
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni


myArmoury Alumni

Location: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Reading list: 72 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:41 pm    Post subject: Re: armorours for 1000s of men         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:

Mass armor production would also be a phenomenal topic for this forum. Some period inventories account for less than a dozen pieces of a typical item (helm, curiass, etc.) within a single shop. Number of 1300's shops in Nuremburg was estimated at 20 at one web site I saw. Given several cities, a few thousand soldiers/knights could be well outfitted. I doubt that full harness is what this really represents, but am totally open to input from those who have studied this longer than I have (about 3 months...)

Jared Smith


there were few armour centers in europe but these guys made, stored and sold very large numbers of arms and armour. Here is an example. In 1427 at the battle of Maclodio, the Milanese were stripped of their armour by the victorious Venetians. The Milanese re equipped their army in a few days with 4000 armours for cavalry and 2000 for infantry form the shops in Milan. On other words these armours were in stock...There are many records of armor manufacturers purchasing armour form soldiers in times of piece and then re selling it (at a higher pice i'd imagine) in times of war. for ore details I'd recommend the "St. george's Workforce" article by Chistopher Dobson in the 19th Park lane Arms Catalogue.

Alexi
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Grisetti




Location: Orlando metro area, Florida, USA
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Likes: 9 pages
Reading list: 28 books

Posts: 1,812

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 6:14 am    Post subject: Re: Anothe data point..         Reply with quote

Daniel Staberg wrote:
...Armor production rates a problem? Nope! Arms and armour was mass produced and rulers bought thousands of sets of armour at a time when needed. At a single market in Bruges in 1295 representatives of Philip the Fair bought equipemnt for several 1000's of men in a single purchase, I'll provide the entire list later today.

Looking forward to that post. I love it when hard data are presented.
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 7:02 am    Post subject: Thankyou all for the good posts on armor statistics!         Reply with quote

All of the above figures indicate pretty significant presence of armor, despite a high percentage (maybe greater than 50%) of swords designed primarily for cutting. Does anyone else have theories (or historical accounts) that describe the actual tactics of engagement? Were all knights typically mounted?

The comments on stirrups and heavy calvary specifically describe the advent of "the couched lance" and advent of heavy plate. One jousting plate armor set on display at Higgins weighs something just under 90lb (87? if I remember right), and most full harness armor is on the order of 55-65 lbs. I know two present semi-pro equestrian eventers than can do a passable job of riding a course (with jumps) with no stirrups and no saddle (provided the horse has the temperment.) Most will not even attempt it, and this does not factor in the added difficulty of wearing 45-65 lbs of armor or trying to impart significant impact with a lance. Is it possible, as at least one article I read suggested, that earlier "shock calvalry" actually used light spears at the initial impact and then drew swords?

This article seems to claim that pre-Norman influence England predominantly used a much shorter type of spear that was fairly similar to a javelin. http://49.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SP/SPEAR.htm Early Norman "lances" were similar, but longer (12'?) and not designed to be thrown. The additional feature of a swell near the hand, enabling the horseman to absorb and give significant impact is supposedly a later period development.
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 10:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Purchase of Philip the Fair (1295):

2853 helmets
4511 padded jacks
751 pairs of gauntlets
6309 shields
1885 crossbows with 666,258 quarrels
14599 swords
13495 lance and spear heads

One should keep in mind that many combatants were responsible for equiping themsleves and didn't recive arms and armour from the king or a royal depot/armoury during this period (pre-1300). Still most roaylty as well as the great nobles could and did keep substacial stocks of equipment which was used to outfit their perosnal retinues and households. There are several preserved documents which show in great detail how the retainers of John Howard, later the Duke of Norfolk were issued equipment by him. On the other hand the 'ordonannces' which established the regular armies of France and Burgundy in the 15th Century laid down the arms and armour a man already had to posses to be taken into service in one of the companies.
View user's profile Send private message
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni


myArmoury Alumni

Location: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Reading list: 72 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 10:38 am    Post subject: Re: Thankyou all for the good posts on armor statistics!         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
All of the above figures indicate pretty significant presence of armor, despite a high percentage (maybe greater than 50%) of swords designed primarily for cutting. Does anyone else have theories (or historical accounts) that describe the actual tactics of engagement? Were all knights typically mounted?


until the mid 14th century the rule of thumb was that knights fought mounted in very close formation using shock tactics against the opponent (wither nother mounted force or the infantry). for the primary attach the lances are used. You need to now that every knight came with few horses and several lances. The attacks were wave like: attack, break a lance, if you live , regroup, get new lance and attack again.....until one side breaks and runs (routs). It is during the rout that most killing happens. tactics likely varied somewhat during the ages (8th-15th century).
Quote:

This article seems to claim that pre-Norman influence England predominantly used a much shorter type of spear that was fairly similar to a javelin. http://49.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SP/SPEAR.htm Early Norman "lances" were similar, but longer (12'?) and not designed to be thrown. The additional feature of a swell near the hand, enabling the horseman to absorb and give significant impact is supposedly a later period development.


It is true that the lance used evolved during the ages. the way it was held changed too. The normans held the lance with extended arms (not couched). later the knights started couching the lance, but the lance it self did not have the "grove" in the back for secure grip. Later with the change of the lance's grip we get the lances we commonly think of today. I may have oversimplified this but that seems the general trend.

The sword was not the first weapon used by the cavalry during the initial attack, nor was it the weapon to use to stop the cavalry. for that purpose one needs very long pointy sticks, aka spears aor pikes. The sword is a close quarter combat weapon. And I have to say that in the time where plate is not yet common place, a well placed blow with a sword will make a mail wearing guy feel a bit uncomfortable. Happy One does not have to kill the opponents...just make them run of the field, or incapacitate them. Few broken bones will do that.

Another issue is that not all knights were equal. Some were rich and some were not. some had the latest armour and many did not. the type of armour required depended on the possessions of the person. in other words when we seen numbers of knights in an army , we should not immediately assume they they were all equipped with the best arms and armour of the day.

alexi
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 11:41 am    Post subject: Re: armorours for 1000s of men         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
I am interested in a factual and logistical type of depiction of how a real army would have been equipped. Please do post the follow up, and any detail regarding total size of the army if you can determine it.


Alexi has posted some figures for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Reasonable figures for English armies in the Hundred Year's War can often be calculated, using payrolls, contracts, and requests for reimbursement / compensation, etc. In the first third of the 14th century, English kings made an experiment in the use of armies with large infantry forces, both archers and shock infantry. This ceased in the early part of the HYW. From Prestwich Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages:

"It was common for the numbers of mounted archers to be the same as tat of the men-at-arms; by this date foot archers and spearmen had vanished from the English inventory...In the next year (1370) Robert Knollys agreed to serve with a force of 2000 men-at-arms and 2000 mounted archers, though in practice he went with 1,500 of each."

"Henry V's invasion of 1415 was with a substantial force, numbering probably about 10,000, of whom 2,500 were men-at-arms and the remainder mounted and foot archers....In 1428 the earl of Salisbury contracted to provide 600 men-at-arms and 1,800 archers, all mounted; he had discretion to change the balance of the force, and substitute a further 600 archers for 200 men-at-arms. In 1439 the duke of Somerset agreed to serve for six months with a hundred men-at-arms and 2,000 archers; accounts show he that he in fact raised 1,980 of the latter. In 1443 he provided a much larger force, of about 600 men-at-arms and almost 4,800 archers. "

The balance tips towards archers in the later HYW, likely in part due to cost and availability of each type of soldier. These were not large armies. The Black Death has something to do with this, as well as the effectiveness of a smaller, better-trained and equipped force vs. a larger, ill-trained and poorly equipped one.


Quote:
I have been studying with ARMA, which trains mostly in unarmored judicial type long hilted (8" plus grip length) longsword training. I have a few bloodied knuckles from todays' sparring session as I type. The texts studied within this group generally advocate very aggressive tactics. A pair of combatants will generally never take a retreating step, and close to within grappling/ wrestling distance if the first one or two sword strokes do not decide the outcome. This seems more appropriate to mercenary soldiers who would be in the high fatality rate, front line situation. I have tried very hard to identify surviving long hilted longswords similar to what is shown in period text fechktbuk artwork, and it they are simply not found in significant quantities in surviving examples.. I am near reaching the conclusion that this type of agressive sword work is not of knightly/ nobility class, but more towards the mercenary soldier tactics. If my deduction is correct, these long hilted swords may have been recycled and not saved as noble family relics.


Mercenaries were not particularly fond of dying - it was bad for business. Indeed, with the condotierre of Italy, they were accused by Machiavelli of deliberately not fighting hard, and when the French invaded the Italian peninsula in 1494, their hard-hitting men-at-arms made short work of the Italian professional soldiers. Some kinds of mercenaries took greater risks, i.e. the Swiss and Landesknecht pikemen; but their style of close-in fighting is very unlike longswords (probably more like dussack) - suited to a katzbalger sword. On the other hand, much of what we know about longswords comes from artwork - paintings and statuary. A large number of these artworks are known to be of gentlemen and nobles, who are usually shown with longswords.

Quote:
I have always loved the ideal of a chivalrous knightly class doing armored combat, but am not sure if this was what really represented most of the time spent by knights, or the majority of a medieval battlefield. Some accounts of extended campaigns seem to illustrate a tactic of raiding and pillaging villagers, and avoiding full up combat. This makes some political and economic sense, but at some point a decisive confrontation would seem unavoidable.


Wars of attrition were common in the Middle Ages - Yunker is quite right on this point. This is known as "Vegetian" strategy, after the late Roman author who wrote "De Re Militari". There were some attempts at deliberately forcing a battle, but this was difficult to pull off in an era of small armies, poor roads and communications, and an enemy who could move just as fast as you could. Not all knightly fighting was done in major battles, though. Even with the "little war" of raids and pillaging, skirmishes and ambushes could easily happen.
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 12:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

About the numbers of cutting swords, we have no good data. Medieval inventories don't classify their swords by Oakeshott's method, and usually don't specify anything useful about the swords being counted.

However, I would like to note that one cache of swords was dragged out of the Dordogne River near Castillon. The evidence suggests they were a shipment of weapons which was sunk in the later part of the HYW. From Records of the Medieval Sword, there were eighty swords. The largest group are short bladed (about 32") type XV or XVIII swords; the second largest group are longer bladed (about 38") and Oakeshott thought they were either XVa's or XVIII's. Three blades are of a cutting type - XXa. The vast preponderance of this particular group of swords are thrusters or equally cut and thrust types.

One other point about armour purchases - armour is a very "durable good", and in many periods and places the majority of the gentry and most nobles had their own armour. To cite from Prestwich again

"A well off knight might possess substantial quantities of armour. Fulk de Pembridge, in his will of 1325, left his eldest son a haketon, a hauberk, a pair of plates, a tournament bascinet, a helmet for war and another for tournaments, an aventail, gauntlets, poleyns, cuisses, two swords, two horse coverings, some horse armour, spurs and other equipment. Two other sons also received a full set of armour each, with the fourth receiving two hauberks."

Mass purchases of armour were likely only supplements to large existing stocks of armour - most of which was not in possession of the government / king buying armour. In the Assizes of 1182, Henry II specifies what military gear each property class of Englishman is supposed to have, none of which is supplied by the government.
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 4:48 pm    Post subject: continued use of mail.. not all knights armoured "cap a         Reply with quote

I just found one article discussing evolution of armour, and dates of their appearance, and some vague statements regarding the fact that not all combatants had the latest and greatest types of armor. http://users.wpi.edu/~dev_alac/iqp/indepth/historyofarmor.html

It seems to state that only the wealthy nobility class could afford full plate harness. It also states some other interesting things such as the simple hauberk being the most common form of armour afforded throughout the medieval period, and continued depictions of knights wearing mail armour into the late 1300's early 1400s time frame. If this is a valid assessment, then there would be plenty of opportunity for a cutter type sword over a wide range of the medieval period!
View user's profile Send private message
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni


myArmoury Alumni

Location: San Francisco, CA
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Reading list: 72 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 5:02 pm    Post subject: Re: continued use of mail.. not all knights armoured "c         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
I just found one article discussing evolution of armour, and dates of their appearance, and some vague statements regarding the fact that not all combatants had the latest and greatest types of armor. http://users.wpi.edu/~dev_alac/iqp/indepth/historyofarmor.html

It seems to state that only the wealthy nobility class could afford full plate harness. It also states some other interesting things such as the simple hauberk being the most common form of armour afforded throughout the medieval period, and continued depictions of knights wearing mail armour into the late 1300's early 1400s time frame. If this is a valid assessment, then there would be plenty of opportunity for a cutter type sword over a wide range of the medieval period!


Yes, this assessment is pretty much accurate. It is done by the folks at the Higgins armoury museum. Some of the pictures are of pieces in their collection (like the german bascinet). I think there is little doubt that maile was by far the most common and widely spread defence through out the whole medieval period. just consider the fact that the first breastplates appeared towards the end of the 14th century. Yes there was the coat of plates (CoP) before it, which was still worn over mail. I am not sure whether the CoP was popular throughout europe or was used mainly in Germany.

Alexi
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why only cutting swords in the age of maille?
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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