ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Armoury => Topic started by: Sir Hancz on 2015-02-05, 23:44:26
-
Hey guys, i'm looking for a crusader knight set that is realistic, and is quite affordable. I'm starting my first kit based on the crusades because its a cool time period, and it will be relatively cheap compared to the full plate armors. I was thinking something like a great helm, and some mail, with a sword and shield. A list of something realistic would be much appreciated! Thank you for your time gentlemen/women. :)
-
Hmm...what do you consider affordable? You can get decent maille from allbeststuff, as decent as can be had off the shelf, that is. Full hauberk and coif (integral, not integral is a long running discussion). If you can figure out how much you want to spend on it all, it'll be easier to decide which way to go. Take the sword, for instance- there's a good selection of Crusades-era blades (depending on which Crusade you're looking to portray) and prices range from $100 on up; mine is an Albion Arn sword dubbed 'IRAE' with a DBK custom scabbard, for which I paid $1850 (1000 for sword, 850 for scabbard), which doesn't include shipping, by the way. The Windlass Classic Medieval Sword is a pretty decent option and you can usually get it on the cheap if you keep an eye out. Full price is $195 on MRL's site but you can get it for less. A stout type X with a curved flattened cross, single hand grip, wheel pommel, peened construction. A good sword. So that covers maille and sword, you'll also need your surcoat and cloak which you should have no problems sourcing, there's a lot out there to choose from. For a helm, you'll want to drill down which Crusade you're going for because armor changed over the course of the Crusades. 1st Crusaders would've been wearing simple nasal helms, some spangen style with no nasal would've been present. What else? Prick spurs, not rowels...ankle boots (even though I wear tall boots, its anachronistic, not historical). And of course, your under garments- linen is most comfortable and you'd need a coif, tunic, braes, hosen for next to skin. Now, I like to wear a lightly padded gambeson over that to help deal with the weight of my maille but there's been discussion on whether or not they were worn then, if at all. It makes it more comfortable for me, ymmv. I use Oakheart Armoury for my shield needs- they can set up blanks or full-on custom and pretty much anything in between. Early crusades would've been Norman kite/tear drop style, heater style came later...no rounds, so far as I know.
As you know, the more historically accurate you want it to be, the more expensive it can get- it all depends on how far you want to go down that road (and how much of your pocket you'd like to empty). Good luck!
-
This is a list of the basics you'll need for a kit (circa 1187)
SOFT KIT:
• St. Louis Shirt
• Braies
• Hose
• Tunic
• Coif
• Surcoat
• Cloak
• Gambeson
• Arming Cap
• Felt Cap
• Turn Shoes/Boots
HARD KIT:
• Maille Hauberk with integral coif and mittens - Flat Wire Riveted (dome riveted) with alternateFlat Ring Solid
• Maille Chausses - Flat Wire Riveted (dome riveted) with alternate Flat Ring Solid
• Transitional Pot Helm
• Flat-Top Kite Shield
WEAPONS:
• Oakeschott Type XII with Scabbard
• Spear
• Dagger
ACCOUTREMENTS:
• Belt (preferably brown, no more than 1" wide)
• Varius pouches
• Water container (skin, gourd, pottery)
• Spurs (short pricks)
ACCESSORIES:
• Pennon
• Pater Noster
• Utility Knife
• Cross necklace
-
Give us a more specific time period. Crusades covers multiple centuries, and kits changed significantly over the course of those centuries, and by location.
-
Give us a more specific time period. Crusades covers multiple centuries, and kits changed significantly over the course of those centuries, and by location.
I was thinking the third crusade.
-
Well with the good info in Sir William's post and Baron de Magnan's list they certainly gave you a great starting point for Third Crusade.
-
This kit is dated to 1244 (Sixth Crusade) though, it's not much different from a Third Crusade kit (1189-1192).
1244 mounted knight, Siege of Jerusalem
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02996/Jerusalem_2996028b.jpg)
1 Gonfanon – a banner that was used after the Norman conquest and displayed on the end of a spear or flag pole
2 Kettle helmet - broad brimmed with lots of ventilation and good visibility
3 Helmet with a curved face plate, which came into use after the Siege of Antioch, which took place during the First Crusade in 1097 and 1098
4 Sword belt
5 Shield with a flat top
6 Necklace
7 White cloth with a snip for cutting small items, a leather box of needles and a roll of thread fire steel a flint and tinder for starting a fire
8 Wooden bowl and cup, ceramic cup and a wooden spoon
9 Knife and sheaf for cutting food. There were no forks in this time period – people used spoons to eat soup or porridge, and a knife to eat meat
10 Water bottle made of leather and soaked in pitch
11 Script bag
12 Leather boots– finished just below the calf with the laces wrapped around boots
13 Gauntlet – leather gloves
14 Linen Shirt
15 Socks – made using the technique nålebinding, where long lengths of wool are woven into long thin braids, starting at toe
16 Battle dress – red tunic worn next to the body; linen canvus padded jacket, chaine maille and blue and yellow surcoat
17 Belt – made using the technique of tablet weaving, a very archaic form of weaving
18 Rosary beads
19 Belt
20 Woollen cloak shaped like semi circle - waterproof and wind proof and used for travelling
21 Glaive - a new invention for the time, the weapon was originally made from a broken sword with a new piece of wood welded on
22 Sword
23 Dagger
24 Crescent-shaped axe
25 Flanged mace
26 Thigh-length, sleeveless leather vest, which buckled down back and had metal plates inside. This was top of the range body armour for the period
28 Maille to cover the legs and linen covering that went to the mid thigh - in this time period trousers don’t yet exist so the pieces of material covering the leg and groin are two different pieces
27 Straps to attach maille legs
-
This is a transitional Late 12th- mid 13th century Helmet. (GDFB)
http://kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0359&name=Crusader+Flat+Top+Helm (http://kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0359&name=Crusader+Flat+Top+Helm)
a Kettle Helm.
http://kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=SNH2212&name=XIII+Century+Kettle+Helm (http://kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=SNH2212&name=XIII+Century+Kettle+Helm) (GDFB)
Here is allbestuff mail
http://allbeststuff.com/c-medieval-chainmail-armor (http://allbeststuff.com/c-medieval-chainmail-armor)
You will also want to be sure to buy a coif with a Ventail. It is the mail flap on the coif. (Wether it's use is to protect the mouth or more so the chin, I am not sure)
Intergrated or non intergrated mail like Sir William said, is discussed. Though intergrated mail I "Think" Is much more common for 12th and 13th centuries.
The Albion Hospitaller, Is acceptable for 12th to mid 13th century.
While the albion Templar blade is mid to late 13th.
The Ritter next to the Albion Hospitaller is 12th.
http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm#Single-Handed (http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm#Single-Handed)
On a Note for All best stuff mail, you can request some size changes on the hauberks and for the sleeves to Taper on the hauberks. Nitin is very easy to work with.
Clothing at the time was wool or linen. I've heard that linen is much more common in the middle east, but I have no source to back that up.
In kingdom of heaven....(cough) ;)
The first Coat of plates aren't seen until mid 13th.
Like sir William said there is some Debate as well on padding. We know they had it by mid 13th century due to the Morgan picture bible.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Morgan-bible-fl27.jpg)
Realistically, you can scroll through google images looking at different pictures from it or buy modern reproductions of the book for kit help.
More on the debate of padding.
Some historians argue that they had padding underneath as far back as 1066 since their argument is that the cuff or cloth poking out from beneath the hauberk is a padded gambeson.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02398/BayeuxTapestry_2398754k.jpg)
There are no findings of a padded gambeson before 13th century.
Mail chausses
Aren't in common use until mid 12th, and then they only covered the front of the legs. By the 13th century they covered the front and back.
Leg armor in the 13th century one can see can have The Chausses, then padding over the chausses with a knee pad called cuisses. that covered a bit past the knee. Then Steel half greaves/Demi greas/Early greaves or just shin plates came around mid 13th. century. Although Gerald of wales mentions the use of greaves in the 12th century. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1444538&pageno=17 (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1444538&pageno=17)
-
Baron, I've never seen a 13th C panoply laid out like that before- thank you for posting! It is right smack in the era I'm looking to portray this year. I doubt I'll be able to collect it all, but I'll get a good bit of it. That early coat of plates, that's period? Exciting if so.
-
William Coat of plates appear by mid 12th.
http://www.arador.com/armour/coat-of-plates/ (http://www.arador.com/armour/coat-of-plates/)
Here William at 9:00 Mike Loades says the effigy dates to the 1230's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4aMoCAypos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4aMoCAypos)
-
Thank you, Naythan- good stuff!
-
The Albion Hospitaller, Is acceptable for 12th to mid 13th century.
While the albion Templar blade is mid to late 13th.
The Ritter next to the Albion Hospitaller is 12th.
Not sure where you got your dates from but they are WAY off.
The Albion Hospitaller and Ritter are interpretations of the Oakeshott Type XI. The Type XI was dominant during the 12th century. It was most common from 1120-1175, with some a few examples going as far back as 1080 and as late as 1210.
The Albion Templar is an interpretation of the Oakeshott Type Xa. This type was most common during the late Viking age but saw use up to the mid-13th century.
Make sure you keep up on your fact checking.
-
The Albion Hospitaller, Is acceptable for 12th to mid 13th century.
While the albion Templar blade is mid to late 13th.
The Ritter next to the Albion Hospitaller is 12th.
Not sure where you got your dates from but they are WAY off.
The Albion Hospitaller and Ritter are interpretations of the Oakeshott Type XI. The Type XI was dominant during the 12th century. It was most common from 1120-1175, with some a few examples going as far back as 1080 and as late as 1210.
The Albion Templar is an interpretation of the Oakeshott Type Xa. This type was most common during the late Viking age but saw use up to the mid-13th century.
Make sure you keep up on your fact checking.
Albion site says the ritter is early 13th century.
looking through these, I actually see that most of the type XII's are found from French manuscripts. While the English they look like the Hospitallers(Same with Germany, although with germany I see more variation(Like that of the ritter)
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/?year=1200&year_end=1260&country=4&country=12&country=3&country=8&country=9&country=2&country=15&country=34&country=24&country=7&tags=&manuscript= (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/?year=1200&year_end=1260&country=4&country=12&country=3&country=8&country=9&country=2&country=15&country=34&country=24&country=7&tags=&manuscript=)
I still think the swords in the Morgan bible (the majority) are type XI's.
Now here interesting ones from france and... I see both a type XII and XI
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4107/12174/ (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4107/12174/)
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4975/15451/ (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4975/15451/)
Ritter pommel and type XII
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4107/12185/ (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4107/12185/)
(Btw when I say type XI, I mean a sword resembling the Hospitaller, and a sword Resembling the Albion 13th century knightly sword).
And doing more research, yes I see that after (pff, say 1230?) The type XII is definitely the norm.
Yet strangely the Morgan bible seems to show the Disc pommel as the Norm.
I still will argue the Hospitaller is fine for early 13th.
Make me say no later than 1210.... ;D
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/?manuscript=&tags=&country=4&country=12&country=3&country=8&country=9&country=2&country=15&country=34&country=24&country=7&year_end=1260&year=1200&page=3 (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/?manuscript=&tags=&country=4&country=12&country=3&country=8&country=9&country=2&country=15&country=34&country=24&country=7&year_end=1260&year=1200&page=3)
-
Baron if you want to see more of my research, just give me your email and Ill share it with you via gmail.
(although Looking at more manuscripts, my older research is more of me just arguing with myself)
-
Naythan, you may be confusing your sword typology a bit. Oakeshott typology is specific to blade geometry. It is not coupled with hilting and pommel typology. So a type X blade may have a lobed viking style pommel or a brazil nut pommel later on, and then a wheel pommel. And they overlap in time as well.
So looking through a manuscript at pommel shapes doesn't tell you much about the oakeshott blade typology directly. You seem to want to make a direct correlation between the two, but it doesn't work that way.
Type XII swords are some of the most common blade types and they last hundreds of years, with all different and changing hilt configurations and pommel shapes.
Also, blade profiles don't tell you the whole story, and that's really all you can see in manuscripts. Profile taper may be similar between two blade types, if you can't see or reasonably make an educated guess at cross-section, and fuller shapes you again don't have the whole picture.
-
Oakeshott typology is specific to blade geometry. It is not coupled with hilting and pommel typology.
I actually did not know that. I had always thought it was the whole shebang — blade, hilt, pommel, crossguard — that made something a "Type **". But then, I admit I've not devoted much study to swords, and I've never been able to keep all that typology stuff straight anyway. :)
-
I take the word over Ewart Oakeshott who designed the typology system over the Albion website. I know Peter Johanson is a reputable man however. The problem with the Ritter is that it's heavily based on one particular piece. That particular piece was an outlier in the typology and never quite fit into any category. Unless one is going for a very detailed and specific impression, its usually best to choose items for one's kit based on what's representative and common for the era/persona being portrayed.
-
And here's another bit of food for thought: Just because a piece dates to a specific range does not necessarily make its use in historical recreation appropriate. Take the Henry Repeating Rifle for example. At the 150th anniversary reenactment at Gettysburg, I saw a dismounted cavalryman using a Henry (there's a long list of things wrong with his impression, but I'll focus on his weapon). The Henry Rifle was designed and later manufactured in 1860, the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 1863. Therefore, a Henry rifle is period correct. That doesn't make it's use appropriate though. Henrys were adopted by the Union Army in 1864 and on a very small and limited scale. This man saw a cool looking rifle, he wanted to stand out from his comrades and show of this cool expensive rifle, and he saw M1860 Henry Repeating Rifle and that was about as much research as he did to verify its period correctness. As such he had a really crappy impression.
The Ritter is an outlier weapon. It is not one I'd recommend if one is going for an impression generic knight of the Third Crusade. If, however, that one finds irrefutable evidence of a knight who had a weapon near identical in its blade profile and fittings to the Ritter, I'd say go for it. But only if he also adopted that particular knight's armor, heraldry, and history into his impression. If someone asks him, "What are you?" he should answer, "I'm Sir So-and-So" rather than "I'm a knight of the Third Crusade".
My overall point is this - go for what's generic, mundane, and representative as that is what we know most about. If you want to be an outlier or be different, you better have enough documentation to pull off a fool-proof persona. People will ask you questions about everything. It's a lot easier to answer questions about the average knight, or the average soldier, or the average merchant, or the average upperclass woman, than it is to answer questions about a particular person. I can tell you right off the top of my head what a typical Union soldier might have eaten, but I can't tell you what General Francis Meagher ate before the Battle of Fredericksburg. I can tell you how a particular Norman knight may have been armed and equipped, but I can't tell you exactly what Sir Wadard carried into battle at Hastings. So for that reason, I have chosen generic impressions as they give the general population a better idea of what the past was like. Some people are bored with generic impressions and can't find enough evidence to form one of a particular figure, so instead they invent a fictional personna and spread their fiction (rather than documented history) to the general and do what is called "First Person". I could go on with my deep-seated hatred for first person impressions, but that would derail the thread.
Sir Hancz requested help in a realistic (I read "generic and representative" here) kit of a knight during the Third Crusade. He has not given anymore details in that regard, so to be most representative, he would probably be an English knight of low to middle social standing. Let's face it, none of us would be able to afford the kit of a wealthy knight. As a soft kit goes, he should stick to bright contrasting colors. His surcoat should be monocolored with the main color of his blazon. The helm may or may not be painted. A gambeson would be acceptable, and the maille should be fairly standard flat wire with dome rivets. It should have integrated mittens and coif with ventail. The shield should be a flat-topped kite shield. The sword can either be an early Type XII or a late Type XI. I'd go with a Type XII personally. In portraying a generic role, he would be able to give the general public a more holistic view of the Crusades experience, than if he was portraying one particular outlying knight.
-
Naythan, you may be confusing your sword typology a bit. Oakeshott typology is specific to blade geometry. It is not coupled with hilting and pommel typology. So a type X blade may have a lobed viking style pommel or a brazil nut pommel later on, and then a wheel pommel. And they overlap in time as well.
So looking through a manuscript at pommel shapes doesn't tell you much about the oakeshott blade typology directly. You seem to want to make a direct correlation between the two, but it doesn't work that way.
Type XII swords are some of the most common blade types and they last hundreds of years, with all different and changing hilt configurations and pommel shapes.
Also, blade profiles don't tell you the whole story, and that's really all you can see in manuscripts. Profile taper may be similar between two blade types, if you can't see or reasonably make an educated guess at cross-section, and fuller shapes you again don't have the whole picture.
Ya I realized that while researching. (Btw when I say type XI, I mean a sword resembling the Hospitaller, and a sword Resembling the Albion 13th century knightly sword).
I thought we were discussing pommel styles mainly.... That is a my bad. yes I agree type XI BLADE, is mainly late 12th.
And here's another bit of food for thought: Just because a piece dates to a specific range does not necessarily make its use in historical recreation appropriate. Take the Henry Repeating Rifle for example. At the 150th anniversary reenactment at Gettysburg, I saw a dismounted cavalryman using a Henry (there's a long list of things wrong with his impression, but I'll focus on his weapon). The Henry Rifle was designed and later manufactured in 1860, the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 1863. Therefore, a Henry rifle is period correct. That doesn't make it's use appropriate though. Henrys were adopted by the Union Army in 1864 and on a very small and limited scale. This man saw a cool looking rifle, he wanted to stand out from his comrades and show of this cool expensive rifle, and he saw M1860 Henry Repeating Rifle and that was about as much research as he did to verify its period correctness. As such he had a really crappy impression.
The Ritter is an outlier weapon. It is not one I'd recommend if one is going for an impression generic knight of the Third Crusade. If, however, that one finds irrefutable evidence of a knight who had a weapon near identical in its blade profile and fittings to the Ritter, I'd say go for it. But only if he also adopted that particular knight's armor, heraldry, and history into his impression. If someone asks him, "What are you?" he should answer, "I'm Sir So-and-So" rather than "I'm a knight of the Third Crusade".
My overall point is this - go for what's generic, mundane, and representative as that is what we know most about. If you want to be an outlier or be different, you better have enough documentation to pull off a fool-proof persona. People will ask you questions about everything. It's a lot easier to answer questions about the average knight, or the average soldier, or the average merchant, or the average upperclass woman, than it is to answer questions about a particular person. I can tell you right off the top of my head what a typical Union soldier might have eaten, but I can't tell you what General Francis Meagher ate before the Battle of Fredericksburg. I can tell you how a particular Norman knight may have been armed and equipped, but I can't tell you exactly what Sir Wadard carried into battle at Hastings. So for that reason, I have chosen generic impressions as they give the general population a better idea of what the past was like. Some people are bored with generic impressions and can't find enough evidence to form one of a particular figure, so instead they invent a fictional personna and spread their fiction (rather than documented history) to the general and do what is called "First Person". I could go on with my deep-seated hatred for first person impressions, but that would derail the thread.
Sir Hancz requested help in a realistic (I read "generic and representative" here) kit of a knight during the Third Crusade. He has not given anymore details in that regard, so to be most representative, he would probably be an English knight of low to middle social standing. Let's face it, none of us would be able to afford the kit of a wealthy knight. As a soft kit goes, he should stick to bright contrasting colors. His surcoat should be monocolored with the main color of his blazon. The helm may or may not be painted. A gambeson would be acceptable, and the maille should be fairly standard flat wire with dome rivets. It should have integrated mittens and coif with ventail. The shield should be a flat-topped kite shield. The sword can either be an early Type XII or a late Type XI. I'd go with a Type XII personally. In portraying a generic role, he would be able to give the general public a more holistic view of the Crusades experience, than if he was portraying one particular outlying knight.
I mainly try to do that. I just didn't think a blade type that is a little different wouldn't be that bad if the hilt matches up alright. Say If I am at a re-enactment event. Though I guess Ill get my throat slit by a Type XII if I have a type XI. ;)
Sorry for the confusion....
-
I just didn't think a blade type that is a little different wouldn't be that bad if the hilt matches up alright.
That's like saying it's ok for a Civil War reenactor to use a Brown Bess instead of a 1861 Springfield because they both have walnut stocks.
cutting corners in the reenacting world is a very risky thing
-
Oakeshott typology is specific to blade geometry. It is not coupled with hilting and pommel typology.
I actually did not know that. I had always thought it was the whole shebang — blade, hilt, pommel, crossguard — that made something a "Type **". But then, I admit I've not devoted much study to swords, and I've never been able to keep all that typology stuff straight anyway. :)
Before this point disappears completely, Oakeshott also had a typology for hilt components, but it's not as widely known.
If you look at MyArmoury's article on Oakeshott, you can see some of this on pages 3 through 5:
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott.html (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott.html)
-
Actually Albion Europe's site says the Ritter is good from 1225 to 1275. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vLQquXwJTlIJ:www.albion-europe.com/search/model.aspx%3Fmodel%3D72+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vLQquXwJTlIJ:www.albion-europe.com/search/model.aspx%3Fmodel%3D72+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera)
Personally Germany actually held onto older styles more, so using it for 13th century stuff is perfectly fine. Not sure about France and England though. Not sure if it's period for the 12th century though, thats why I have my Reeve.
-
I just didn't think a blade type that is a little different wouldn't be that bad if the hilt matches up alright.
That's like saying it's ok for a Civil War reenactor to use a Brown Bess instead of a 1861 Springfield because they both have walnut stocks.
cutting corners in the reenacting world is a very risky thing
Not quite. An early 13th century kit isn't for a particular war or year, So there is more leeway. But Ill be standardized. Actually Albion Europe's site says the Ritter is good from 1225 to 1275. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vLQquXwJTlIJ:www.albion-europe.com/search/model.aspx%3Fmodel%3D72+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vLQquXwJTlIJ:www.albion-europe.com/search/model.aspx%3Fmodel%3D72+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera)
Personally Germany actually held onto older styles more, so using it for 13th century stuff is perfectly fine. Not sure about France and England though. Not sure if it's period for the 12th century though, thats why I have my Reeve.
Maybe if I do a Teutonic or german kit.
-
I just didn't think a blade type that is a little different wouldn't be that bad if the hilt matches up alright.
That's like saying it's ok for a Civil War reenactor to use a Brown Bess instead of a 1861 Springfield because they both have walnut stocks.
cutting corners in the reenacting world is a very risky thing
Not quite. An early 13th century kit isn't for a particular war or year, So there is more leeway. But Ill be standardized.
If I understood what Baron is saying, I think you missed his point. It isn't that a particular weapon in the 13th century needs to be used in a particular war, it's that for a common recreation, the weapon used should be:
* Common to the time
* Common to the area
* Common to the wealth / status / position you are portraying
A Teutonic knight of 1271 would not go to war using a fireplace poker. Using one because an extant piece exists in a museum dated the same decade as your persona is a huge leap to think that means it is correct for your particular impression. :)
-
Thank you, James. You get my point at least.
-
I just didn't think a blade type that is a little different wouldn't be that bad if the hilt matches up alright.
That's like saying it's ok for a Civil War reenactor to use a Brown Bess instead of a 1861 Springfield because they both have walnut stocks.
cutting corners in the reenacting world is a very risky thing
Not quite. An early 13th century kit isn't for a particular war or year, So there is more leeway. But Ill be standardized.
If I understood what Baron is saying, I think you missed his point. It isn't that a particular weapon in the 13th century needs to be used in a particular war, it's that for a common recreation, the weapon used should be:
* Common to the time
* Common to the area
* Common to the wealth / status / position you are portraying
A Teutonic knight of 1271 would not go to war using a fireplace poker. Using one because an extant piece exists in a museum dated the same decade as your persona is a huge leap to think that means it is correct for your particular impression. :)
I still don't view that as a good comparison.
Especially since the area wouldn't be 1271.
Well Ill ask, If I did a kit, set between 1200 and 1215, Would a type XI Blade, be acceptable for an English knight.
-
You're getting closer, but still off. :)
Blade typology is only part. This is what Baron was talking about when he said that two guns aren't the same because they have the same type of stock. You have to talk pommel, crossguard, etc, as an entire sword style.
Find out what entire swords were common to the time, place and persona, and you'll have the answer. Effigies and artwork like you've referenced before are great for that.
-
You're getting closer, but still off. :)
Blade typology is only part. This is what Baron was talking about when he said that two guns aren't the same because they have the same type of stock. You have to talk pommel, crossguard, etc, as an entire sword style.
Find out what entire swords were common to the time, place and persona, and you'll have the answer. Effigies and artwork like you've referenced before are great for that.
I Will.
Don't be surprised If I prove myself wrong!
;)
-
I use a type X sword for 13th century reenacting and it looks fine. Then again i'm doing germany, though type X's were used up to 1300. Many swords were passed down or rehilted. Stuff wasnt just "thrown away" like people do now. It was passed down and used as much as possible. So I think you're fine to use the hospitaller for early 13th. Now for later centuries like the 14th or 15th I dont think anyone knightly would use those types of swords, as armor changed quite a bit. During the maille era it changed little, so I would say you could get away with using swords from the 11th and 12th centuries in the 13th. The opposite way however I would NEVER do. Using a 14th century sword in the 13th would be bad.
-
The opposite way however I would NEVER do. Using a 14th century sword in the 13th would be bad.
Unless your a wizard.
-
IIRC there is a sword mentioned by Oakshott that was shown to be a Viking era blade rehilted in the 15th or 16th century. I always thought it would be really cool to buy a Deepeeka or Windlass Viking blade and rehilt it with a 12th or 13th century hilt.