I do a lot of book grabbing and internet surfing. I've noticed looking at period artwork that a lot of these examples (artwork) show people that seem to be using the same exact weapon, was this just the artist taking a short cut, were these weapons made for a specific campaign, or was it that one type represented itself more than others in a given area and time period? I would expect fair amounts of sword typologies on one battlefield. Some would have hand-me-downs and others would buy the latest style. That's what I would think. Sure there would be thrusters like the XV in later battles, but there are a lot of people without plate, would some not prefer to use a XIII? Is there anything or anybody that can help answer how diverse sword types were at one time?
Hi Ryan...
I have often wondered the same thing. I have never done a statistical test, but just from my impressions it seems that there are a lot of falchions and wide body single handers (i.e. type XV) in period paintings and yet these swords are rare in the archeological record. It seems reasonable the believe the battlefield was more diverse (swordwise) then what we see in the artwork. Maybe there was a little Hollywood in the arts even back in the day. They wanted to paint a sword with a little drama, a little more pazazz... Something with a wide wicked looking blade or a sharp curved pointy slasher :eek:
Another possibility... One of the characteristics of Iconic art is the repetition of similar forms. All the characters seem to have the same face. I doubt all the knights looked alike... So the similarity in sword might also be a reflection of remnant Iconography.
Who knows maybe they did have similar swords... I think I read of a box full of swords dredged up from the bottom of a river somewhere. (something like 80 castilian-like swords? Can't remember :( ). All the swords (at least the ones published) were somewhat similar and believed to be the armoury of a warlord. If he passed all these swords out to his liegemen, then there would be a battle with similar looking swords... at least on one side of the battle.
take care
ks
I have often wondered the same thing. I have never done a statistical test, but just from my impressions it seems that there are a lot of falchions and wide body single handers (i.e. type XV) in period paintings and yet these swords are rare in the archeological record. It seems reasonable the believe the battlefield was more diverse (swordwise) then what we see in the artwork. Maybe there was a little Hollywood in the arts even back in the day. They wanted to paint a sword with a little drama, a little more pazazz... Something with a wide wicked looking blade or a sharp curved pointy slasher :eek:
Another possibility... One of the characteristics of Iconic art is the repetition of similar forms. All the characters seem to have the same face. I doubt all the knights looked alike... So the similarity in sword might also be a reflection of remnant Iconography.
Who knows maybe they did have similar swords... I think I read of a box full of swords dredged up from the bottom of a river somewhere. (something like 80 castilian-like swords? Can't remember :( ). All the swords (at least the ones published) were somewhat similar and believed to be the armoury of a warlord. If he passed all these swords out to his liegemen, then there would be a battle with similar looking swords... at least on one side of the battle.
take care
ks
Throughout the history of the sword's use it was a very common practice to remount older blades in the current fashion of the time. Sword's were constantly recycled throughout their life and continued to be used as long as they were serviceable, regardless of type. Consequently, you may have found swords of many different types in use on the same battlefield.
Ryan;
I think that part of it is artistic convention (the "Hollywoodism"; like all cowboys used Colt Single Action Army revolvers and '92 Winchesters), some of it is that the artist drew what they had in their studio (same goes for the Hollywood angle... Hollywood got some great deals on old Army Colts from the Army in the late 'Teens, and used them For Ever, thus they became the Artistic Convention). Some of the artists actually saw soldiers/warriors (though I would wager that few of them saw any combat), so there may well be some reality behind their illustrations... but sorting it all out, now there's the rub!
Convention vs. Availability vs. Reality: which is the one illustrated in a particular painting? Hard to tell...
Cheers,
Gordon
I think that part of it is artistic convention (the "Hollywoodism"; like all cowboys used Colt Single Action Army revolvers and '92 Winchesters), some of it is that the artist drew what they had in their studio (same goes for the Hollywood angle... Hollywood got some great deals on old Army Colts from the Army in the late 'Teens, and used them For Ever, thus they became the Artistic Convention). Some of the artists actually saw soldiers/warriors (though I would wager that few of them saw any combat), so there may well be some reality behind their illustrations... but sorting it all out, now there's the rub!
Convention vs. Availability vs. Reality: which is the one illustrated in a particular painting? Hard to tell...
Cheers,
Gordon
I would guess it is safe then to say, yes, typologies didn't really fit into any time period. One might have been produced more readily than another for a span of time, eventually stopped being produced but none were really ever replaced. If a weapon worked someone would use it, if someone preferred a given type they would have it, and if you weren't given a choice you fought with what you had at hand.
Which gets me to thinking, if ever someone wanted to wear an XIIIb with a gothic harness circa 1480. Who then could say they were not "historically accurate" and true to the times. Undoubtably somebody would have to point out there mistake, but at present no one can confirm it one.
Which gets me to thinking, if ever someone wanted to wear an XIIIb with a gothic harness circa 1480. Who then could say they were not "historically accurate" and true to the times. Undoubtably somebody would have to point out there mistake, but at present no one can confirm it one.
Ryan;
Well, I think that they typologies are a good rule of thumb to follow in general though. There are always exceptions to generalities, but the generalities still hold. For example, in the first months of the American Civil War there were plenty of Southerners who rallied to their new flag with a total motley of weapons... any swords in evidence were probably Rev War veterans. But it would be a mistake to then assume that two or three years later such items were still in evidence, because photographic evidence in the field suggests strongly that they weren't. By the same token however, much of the American Army and Marine Corps fought the early years of WWII with personal equipment that had been made in the last months of WWI when American production was really getting underway. So there are rules, and exceptions to those rules. But no one would suggest that if you were say doing a Confederate Cavalry impression for late 1861 that you would be wrong with a US Light Cavalry Sabre, nor doing a WWII North African Campaign impression with 1942-made webbing.
The point I'm making is that if you stick to the basic typologies you won't be "wrong" even though there may well be plenty of recognized exceptions to those typologies. But when you get into "using Grandpa's Weapons" you may well be dead on the money, BUT you'll have a harder time proving it to everyone's satisfaction. I hope this makes sense to you, if I'm just adding to your confusion though, please let me know so I can try to clarify it. :)
Cheers,
Gordon
Well, I think that they typologies are a good rule of thumb to follow in general though. There are always exceptions to generalities, but the generalities still hold. For example, in the first months of the American Civil War there were plenty of Southerners who rallied to their new flag with a total motley of weapons... any swords in evidence were probably Rev War veterans. But it would be a mistake to then assume that two or three years later such items were still in evidence, because photographic evidence in the field suggests strongly that they weren't. By the same token however, much of the American Army and Marine Corps fought the early years of WWII with personal equipment that had been made in the last months of WWI when American production was really getting underway. So there are rules, and exceptions to those rules. But no one would suggest that if you were say doing a Confederate Cavalry impression for late 1861 that you would be wrong with a US Light Cavalry Sabre, nor doing a WWII North African Campaign impression with 1942-made webbing.
The point I'm making is that if you stick to the basic typologies you won't be "wrong" even though there may well be plenty of recognized exceptions to those typologies. But when you get into "using Grandpa's Weapons" you may well be dead on the money, BUT you'll have a harder time proving it to everyone's satisfaction. I hope this makes sense to you, if I'm just adding to your confusion though, please let me know so I can try to clarify it. :)
Cheers,
Gordon
I think the answer to period artwork is the nature of medieval art. Medieval art wasn't meant to be an exact image of anything. That's why there is little depth in most of the drawings, more important figures can be twice the size of less important ones, and everybody has the same face. This isn't a testament to the lack of skill of the artist. They could have drawn Renaissance or Baroque art if they'd wanted to. However, they were commissioned to paint certain things in a certain style, for certain reasons. I think the reason the type XV or the falchion is used so often, or the reason similar types of armor are used for whole armies is because the drawing isn't supposed to represent a type XV. The drawing is supposed to represent a sword on an almost Platonian level.
| Ryan A. C. wrote: |
| ...Which gets me to thinking, if ever someone wanted to wear an XIIIb with a gothic harness circa 1480. Who then could say they were not "historically accurate" and true to the times. Undoubtably somebody would have to point out there mistake, but at present no one can confirm it one. |
Maybe "historically possible" and "historically accurate" are not the same? Maybe what we often think of as "historically accurate" is really more like "historically representative". While a XIIIb might have been available in 1480, I think it is unlikely that someone with a full gothic harness would use it in preference over a more contemporary weapon, since opponents might well also be wearing full gothic harness, and the XIIIb would be ineffective. So, possible, but low probability?
Your last point above reminds me of Sir Ridley Scott's rebuttal to his historical consultants. As he said in his commentary on the "Gladiator" DVD, when the consultants tell him something that he doesn't want to hear, his response is, "how do you know, you weren't there". And then he just goes and films what he thinks looks right. As much as Sir Ridley's willingness to rewrite history annoys me, in some of these cases, maybe he is actually performing experimental archaeology?
I would agree to the idea of things beeing "historicaly representaive" rather than "Historicaly accurate."
If someone wanted to start seenacting a 1980's action hero, he could probably find sources that would let him wear bellbotoms. Someone probably still wore them. But he would not look very 80's.
When it comes to armament, he COULD pack a Colt 1911, because it was, and is still, a pretty comon weapon. But again he should have gone with a Berretta 92 or MAC10, because its much more representative of the 80s(unless the 1911 is all chrome, of course...) ; Unlike a FN Five seveN, or other fancy 90s gun, it won't be wrong, just not representive.
And reenactment is all about beeing representive.
If someone wanted to start seenacting a 1980's action hero, he could probably find sources that would let him wear bellbotoms. Someone probably still wore them. But he would not look very 80's.
When it comes to armament, he COULD pack a Colt 1911, because it was, and is still, a pretty comon weapon. But again he should have gone with a Berretta 92 or MAC10, because its much more representative of the 80s(unless the 1911 is all chrome, of course...) ; Unlike a FN Five seveN, or other fancy 90s gun, it won't be wrong, just not representive.
And reenactment is all about beeing representive.
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| I would agree to the idea of things beeing "historicaly representaive" rather than "Historicaly accurate." |
Elling;
Good way of pulling it all together.
Representitive vs. technically accurate is a good way of putting it. Unless one is portraying a specific individual or unit, of whom you have a great deal of information (some of the American Civil War boys do this, and do a wonderful job of portraying a specific unit from a specific moment, with full arms and equipment as per the Quartermaster, Ordnance and Muster returns) it's probably best to stick with representitive details that are well known, rather than "could have been's".
A friend who posts here recently pointed out that although he has little experience with doing Renaissance Faires and all, when he showed up in full fig looking like one of de Gheyn's Musketeers, with musket, rest, bandoliers etc, as well as a good looking outfit closely based upon the engravings, the organizers were beside themselves. They may not have been able to put their finger on just why he looked right, they just knew that the did look right. He was totally representitive of the era in all aspects, and it was immediately recognizeable. Although he could have swapped off some stuff for anachronisms that "might have been" and still be "accurate", it would have ruined the over all effect, and been much less impressive.
Gordon
I wanted to get some other people's thoughts on the subject as, I myself, can only produce the limited thoughts that I would think of. :wtf: Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your responses, especially concerning the period art.
One thought: there are varying sizes of art works, and this very basic issue might affect the way swords are shown. Most of the pictures showing battle scenes are manuscript illustrations, i.e. minatures. These are sometimes amazingly small images when seen in real life. The detail necessary to distinguish many types of sword would be hard to show when the image of the sword is only 1 cm long (for example). A messer or falchion would be easily distinguished, because the outline varies. For most of the typology, the outline variations are subtler, and the ways of showing the cross-section are more subtle. The border between type XV and XVIII is especially close; but consider a picture of a XVI vs. a XVII, or XVI and a XIV. Even today, with photographs which can be enlarged, it isn't always east to tell a narrow fuller from a ridge. Take the Lutel catalogue. Are the fullers blackened for looks, are they not blackened but look that way, or are they blackened because the fullers are hard to see when they aren't blackened?
Much of the detail from the typology is not taken from miniatures, but from sculptures and the like, often life-sized. The shapes of pommels and crosses can often be exactly determined (even if the blade is in a scabbard). The large-scale images never (AFAIK) show battles. It is only later that artists have access to canvases the size of living rooms, and can show many figures in some size which allows the display of fine detail.
Another thought: several sword types would be present on many battlefields, especially in later periods, due to the specialized nature of various troops. The landsknechts used katzbalgers, which generally fall into the short, heavy cutting blade type. These landknechts marched beside men-at-arms, who might have long XVIIIb's at the saddle; and an XVIII or XV (perhaps) as an arming sword. Archers might want something a little longer than a katzbalger, if they were so unlucky as to get close to the enemy - again, maybe an XVIII, but a XVI perhaps, or a falchion. The landsknechts might well have some men with zweihanders, which are really a separate genre.
Much of the detail from the typology is not taken from miniatures, but from sculptures and the like, often life-sized. The shapes of pommels and crosses can often be exactly determined (even if the blade is in a scabbard). The large-scale images never (AFAIK) show battles. It is only later that artists have access to canvases the size of living rooms, and can show many figures in some size which allows the display of fine detail.
Another thought: several sword types would be present on many battlefields, especially in later periods, due to the specialized nature of various troops. The landsknechts used katzbalgers, which generally fall into the short, heavy cutting blade type. These landknechts marched beside men-at-arms, who might have long XVIIIb's at the saddle; and an XVIII or XV (perhaps) as an arming sword. Archers might want something a little longer than a katzbalger, if they were so unlucky as to get close to the enemy - again, maybe an XVIII, but a XVI perhaps, or a falchion. The landsknechts might well have some men with zweihanders, which are really a separate genre.
Also, at least on the earlier illustrations, the drawing skill of the artist, and the overall layout of the picture is important.
Drawing sword blades is not always easy; it is hard to get the taper right. The easiest way to do it is, in my experience, to make the blade triangular, and use a ruler; or using a ruler to make two paralell lines and then draw the point.
The swords in Liberi's Flos Duelarum look like they are drawn this way.
This becomes even more prominent in I.33. Early and High Medevial art is very simple, for instance lacking central perspective, or propper ways to draw depth.
Another issue is the relative placement of elements. Partly, this goes for fighting manuals, like the Talhofer 1467; The illustrations do not show the relative distance between the fighters, because the pages they are drawn on just isn't big enough.
As another example:
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&b.gif
Note the guy with the shield and dagger. Now, (outside reenactment fighting) this is a pretty useless combo. So, why is he wielding a dagger? Probably because if he was wielding a sword, the blade would be in front of the head of the horse behind him.
taking artisic freedoms is nothing new.
Drawing sword blades is not always easy; it is hard to get the taper right. The easiest way to do it is, in my experience, to make the blade triangular, and use a ruler; or using a ruler to make two paralell lines and then draw the point.
The swords in Liberi's Flos Duelarum look like they are drawn this way.
This becomes even more prominent in I.33. Early and High Medevial art is very simple, for instance lacking central perspective, or propper ways to draw depth.
Another issue is the relative placement of elements. Partly, this goes for fighting manuals, like the Talhofer 1467; The illustrations do not show the relative distance between the fighters, because the pages they are drawn on just isn't big enough.
As another example:
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&b.gif
Note the guy with the shield and dagger. Now, (outside reenactment fighting) this is a pretty useless combo. So, why is he wielding a dagger? Probably because if he was wielding a sword, the blade would be in front of the head of the horse behind him.
taking artisic freedoms is nothing new.
Hi everybody - this is my first post here.
In regards to this topic I think it really depends on the artist. Most show very little detail or variation, however the Maciejowski bible (the link to the picture above is a good example) shows a lot of variation in weaponry as well as detailed armour. Many weapons in these illustrations look unique or at least are very rarely seen in other pictoral representations (such as the gigantic kitchen knife ;) being used on horseback again in the above example) . However even here we see a lot of repetition in the great helms being worn to the point of being identical except for the colour, whilst the kettle hats are quite varied in their styles.
One cannot discount the possiblility of uniformity within an army due either to stylistic trends or that some equipment would have been mass produced specifically for a company or group such as a royal guard.
In regards to this topic I think it really depends on the artist. Most show very little detail or variation, however the Maciejowski bible (the link to the picture above is a good example) shows a lot of variation in weaponry as well as detailed armour. Many weapons in these illustrations look unique or at least are very rarely seen in other pictoral representations (such as the gigantic kitchen knife ;) being used on horseback again in the above example) . However even here we see a lot of repetition in the great helms being worn to the point of being identical except for the colour, whilst the kettle hats are quite varied in their styles.
One cannot discount the possiblility of uniformity within an army due either to stylistic trends or that some equipment would have been mass produced specifically for a company or group such as a royal guard.
Medevial artists draw consepts, not people. For instance, a Knight always wears maile. Even on stealth missions:
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&b.gif
An even greater feat of armoured stealth....
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&d.gif :D
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&b.gif
An even greater feat of armoured stealth....
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&d.gif :D
I didn't thing those stealth missions, but I see your point. Art can be interpreted in different ways, you and I for example, and as you said period art is drawn on concept not to exacting detail or perfect representation of real life.
Thanks for the links, I hadn't seen those before.
Thanks for the links, I hadn't seen those before.
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| I would agree to the idea of things beeing "historicaly representaive" rather than "Historicaly accurate."
If someone wanted to start seenacting a 1980's action hero, he could probably find sources that would let him wear bellbotoms. Someone probably still wore them. But he would not look very 80's. When it comes to armament, he COULD pack a Colt 1911, because it was, and is still, a pretty comon weapon. But again he should have gone with a Berretta 92 or MAC10, because its much more representative of the 80s(unless the 1911 is all chrome, of course...) ; Unlike a FN Five seveN, or other fancy 90s gun, it won't be wrong, just not representive. And reenactment is all about beeing representive. |
Very good point. One encounters a very similar problem in religion: it's almost always possible to find some single Church Father who has said something or other--but the real point is what they all said. Likewise with the action hero example: there is an action movie with one hero wearing sandles (Cusack's character in Con Air); but the representative action hero doesn't do so. Likewise with re-enactment: our ancestors had a denim-like weave, and they had cotton, and they had indigo, and they had copper--but they didn't have them all at once, and thus blue jeans are anachronistic!
The real problem with a lot of recreation (and we all fall prey to it at one point or another--I know I do) is dwelling on the possible rather than the probable. The possible is infinite: it's quite possible that King Arthur had a motorcar, for after all petroleum, steel &c. all existed just as much in his era as in ours. The probable is quite limited: we have a small sample of surviving artifacts (more for some eras than others). The closer we stick to the probable and the further we stand from the merely possible the better off we are, in terms of historical accuracy.
All IMNSHO of course:-)
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum