Info Favorites Register Log in Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Sir Percival Thirlwall Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Todd Eriksen

Location: Osceola, IA
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Reading list: 14 books

Posts: 64

PostPosted: Sun 24 May, 2009 8:11 am    Post subject: Sir Percival Thirlwall         Reply with quote

I have not read the original sources, and the information I gleaned is from the Osprey "Battle of Bosworth Field, 1485", but this situation just raises some questions for me.

At the battle of Bosworth Field and ultimate demise of Richard III, the king's standard bearer, Sir Percival Thirlwall, supposedly held the king's standard high even after having both legs cut off, before, obviously, succumbing to his wounds.

Things to consider: As a standard bearer and being of the king's household, Thrilwall would have been wearing some of the finest plate armour of the time. Also, as standard bearer you are to protect the banner at all costs and not to let it fall to the ground.

Questions: Is it possible for him to have both legs severed during combat wearing full plated legs? If he weren't immobilized by a prior injury and was able to move normally, is it possible, even for a halberd, to sever his legs? archeological evidence at Wisby shows it is possible to have both legs severed by one blow, but while wearing up to the date plate?

Possibilities: Maybe he was all ready injured and on the ground. Maybe it was done after the battle, as Richard III was mutilated after his death by his enemies. Maybe he had always had prosthetics and in the heat of the battle they somehow became unattached. Maybe he was the Black Knight, "I'm invincible!!!"

Ich Dien
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis

Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Sat 30 May, 2009 7:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's also possible that he wasn't wearing leg armor at the time. A man-at-arms was certainly supposed to possess leg armor, but it seems that in some circumstances he was allowed to take at least some of it off. What battle was it, I wonder, where the men-at-arms discarded their "cuissards" for better mobility on foot?
View user's profile Send private message

Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Sir Percival Thirlwall
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
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 2003-2020 — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum