| Author |
Message |
|
Marcus Svanberg
|
 Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 9:39 am Post subject: Crusaders |
 |
|
Hello!
I'm new in these forums and I must say it is great to be here. Many of you seem to be professionals and I really want to learn more about swords and their history.
I am very intersted in the Holy Crusades that took place from 1100 to 1300 and I wish to learn more about them, but in front of all their swords and their armor. Of cource I whish to buy a nice sword which was typical for the Templar Knights, or the Gothic Knights.
I wonder if anyone has any good advice to me in buying a sword and an armour both functional, which is (if you ask me) the best way of getting something beautiful. Of course I want to get stuff that are historical correct.
Any advice is good for me!
Goodbye!
_________
Walk the road...
See the sun...
Feel the wind...
Never forget...
|
|
  |
 |
Stephen S. Han
Location: Westminster, CA Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Marcus and welcome.
This may be a cop out on my part, but I think you might want to be a little more specific. As you correctly pointed out, the "Crusades" spanned roughly 200 years, and in those years arms and armour did go through some evolution. I think picking a specific crusade and focusing on the arms and armour of that particular time period would be the way to go.
Specifically, the Knights Templar as a recognized order spanned from about 1118 to 1307, so the time spanned is roughly similar to the Crusades.
My personal choice would be the Third Crusades, the most famous to the general public, then the First.
Once you make the choice of the particular time period, then our ability to advise you would be enhanced. The usual suspects in "historically accurate" arms makers include Arms & Armor, Albion, Del Tin, etc. Oh yes, it would also help if you can give some ideas as to your budgetary constraints.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Markus Haider
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Svanberg
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 12:38 pm Post subject: Thanks! |
|
|
I must say that it was an advice of great importance...
Thanks for the tip and when I give it a second thought I decide to follow your advice. The third crusade seems to be good for me. If you can give me some more facts it would be very nice.
About the prices...I don't care. I think that a good sword with good design that fills its purpose is worth much money. The level of price is not important to me...
If you wonder something more I am ready to answer those questions...and all to others as well.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian M
Location: Austin, TX Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 500
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Third Crusade is probably the most well-known thanks to the involvement of Richard I (Lionheart) and Saladin. However, the First Crusade was probably the biggest success for the Crusaders. Also, if you are planning to assemble a "living history kit," a First Crusader might be somewhat easier since the gear was somewhat less extensive.
Check out Albion's NG Norman and NG Gaddhjalt. Both would be correct for the First Crusade era.
Regards,
Brian M
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen S. Han
Location: Westminster, CA Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed, the Third Crusade was the best known for Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, as well as Fredrick Barbarosa. The legend of Robin Hood stemps from this period, and Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott, and Talisman by Sir Walter Scott and so on. Let's see, Barbarosa drowned on his way to the Holy Land circa 1190, so we're looking at late 12th Century to early 13th Century. I notice that Arms & Armor has what they call a 12th Century Sword, so it would fit right in. I agree with Brian re: the First Crusade, though there's less written about it.
There are those who are more knowledgeable than I who can advise you on the period armor issue, however.
In terms of pricing, please know that they range greatly. $500-$700 for swords from a reputable company such as Albion and Arms & Armor, a custom monosteel sword from a good smith will run you over $1000, a pattern-welded blade from the same good smith will run over $3000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I must disagree that the third Crusade is the most interesting crusade I say the glorious and horrific first. But of course this is my opinion- and my period of interest predates the advent of plate harness (1300). The first Crusade was the only successful crusade- the only crusade werein chivalry was not drowning in indulgence and self interest. Feudalism was at it's full flower in 1095 and religious fervor had a place albeit small. By the third Crusade piety for battle was a sham; the Knight and mounted man-at-arms were hardly being killed. Their armor was FAIRLY impervious to the infantry about them, and if they were captured they were not killed but kept for ransom- though this certainly happened earlier. But I perfer to think of the battles of desperation and slaughter- not of panoply and iron-clad classism. And by the way- albion and A&A swords are the best- but don't forget impact weapons and spears wherein I highly recommend A&A
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Kyle
Location: British Columbia Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 3:15 pm Post subject: Seventh Crusade |
|
|
You could always look at a time where the crusaders died in "glorious splendour" against large odds. Take the Battle of Mansurah in 1250 where the Count Robert of Artois was blamed for a disaster which took his life and those of hundreds of Templars and the English hero William Longespee II, grandson of King Henry II. Despite the slaughter, the Sultan was so impressed with Longespee that he said to those afterward who came for redemption of prisoners in 1252:
"I marvel at you, Christians, who reverence the bones of the dead, why you inquire not for those of the renowned and right noble William Longespee, because there be many things reported of him (whether fabulous or not I cannot say), viz., that, in the dark of the night there have been appearances at his tomb, and that to some, who called upon his God, many things were bestowed from Heaven. For which cause, and in regard of his great worth and nobility of birth, we have caused his body to be here intombed."
...just a another take on crusader history.
Full maille is going to cost a pretty penny, especially if you go with the more historically accurate rivetted maille (e.g. http://www.forth-armoury.com/).
Martin
Three yeomen Wallace left upon the field;
Two were of Kyle, and one of Cunningham,
Who left, to follow Wallace, their own hame;
(Blind Harry's Wallace, c. 1475 AD)
|
|
 |
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hey, you think Forth Armoury is expensive try a peice from Erik Schmid!!! I will compromise for authenticity and eventually obtain a piece from Forth Armoury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | | I must disagree that the third Crusade is the most interesting crusade I say the glorious and horrific first. But of course this is my opinion- and my period of interest predates the advent of plate harness (1300). The first Crusade was the only successful crusade- the only crusade werein chivalry was not drowning in indulgence and self interest. Feudalism was at it's full flower in 1095 and religious fervor had a place albeit small. By the third Crusade piety for battle was a sham; the Knight and mounted man-at-arms were hardly being killed. Their armor was FAIRLY impervious to the infantry about them, and if they were captured they were not killed but kept for ransom- though this certainly happened earlier. |
Certainly the first Crusade is the most interesting to me also, especially when notices the small fact that the pope invented jihad as we know it today. Also, if you think that those who went on the first crusade did it only for the "gloria in excelsis deo" then you are sadly mistaken. The first crusade was a near disaster also BECAUSE of greed and self-interest. Crusading was a favorite pastime for second and third sons of nobles because they could carve out kingdoms for themsleves the feudal system would not allow in Europe. Indeed, the first crusades nearly went to war with themselves over who would control the important fortress of Acre. Political machinations and behind-the-scenes maneuverings were just part of the daily games nobles made back then. Look at the slaughter that was caused over this same thing at the Horns of Hattin! As for knights not being killed by the 3rd crusade, well again we need to rexamine historical records. Certainly there was ransome, and if the fmaily was not able to pay, as was often the case, you were promptly executed. Salidin gave specific orders that NONE of the knightly orders were to be ransomed or spared. COnsequently, many Templars, Hospitalers and Knights of Malta lost their lives. We all know Richard Lionheart as a heroic figure who, in reality through sheer force of his will and with his Plantagenent temper, was able to hold the crusading force together. However, one muct remember that he left teh job undone and declared a hasty truce with Salidin in order to hurry home to England. We must also remember that Richard was not well-liked by hsi countrymen and broke his country to wage wars abroad. There is some juicy stories to be had during all the crusades and anyone who likes medieval history would do well to indulge in teh crusadign period.
|
|
  |
|
|
Jesse S. Bailey
Location: Atlanta, Georgia Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Marcus.
My group does 3rd crusade. Actually we do a time period from 1187 thru the Magna Carter Period, 1216. We concentrate on Secular Knights and Templar Knights of this era. Our webpage is www.novae-militiae.com. You can click on the kit section and find swords from this time period in different styles.
Regards,
Jesse
Jesse S. Bailey
Wessex County Wares
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think "successful crusade" depends on how you define success. Arguably the fifth crusade under Frederick II was the most successful in that he took Jerusalem without even having to fight for it, something that Richard Plantaganet was unable to do despite all of his martial prowess.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2004 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I understand it Richard knew that he would be stuck ruling it If he took it by force , so struck a deal with Saladin that
would allow him to return home claiming he'd "won back " the holy land while letting him return home ( while getting
captured by the germans on the way ) to England/France ( i guess he spent as little time in england as he could and didn't actually speak the language as far as i can tell ) .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Feb, 2004 6:43 am Post subject: Richard was a piece of work |
|
|
|
For all the romanticism attached to Richard's name, he was quite ruthless and not above cruelty. One only has to read about the slaughter of prisoners at Ayyadieh where Richard had women, children, men (not fit for slaves) and babies slaughtered for no other eason than they would lsow him down on the march to Jerusalem. He did bing to teh Christian armies something they did not have since the Horns of Hattin; victories. Once he found out that JOhn was usurping his throne back home Richard even suggested a marriage between Saladin's brother should marry Queen Joanna, Richard's widowed sister! Had he not run bacl to England, Richard may well have conquered the Holy Land for the Christains. One interesting side note is the isle of Cyprus. Richard captured it on his way to the cursade but sold it to the Templars to finance the war. Had the Templars not bumbled the administration of this trade-rich island, they may well have become a soverign state. Interesting huh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Svanberg
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 3:01 am Post subject: WHOA! |
|
|
Marcus here!
Thanks for all replies. This is great for me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Svanberg
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Feb, 2004 3:10 am Post subject: Hi! |
|
|
Does anyone know where I can find some facts about all Crusades on the Internet? I need it for a small schoolwork.
______
Marcus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Feb, 2004 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well usually a google search will turn up just about anything you need... also there are TONS of really good (horrors) books on the subject. They are available in any library.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Uhl
Location: Denver, Colo. Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 10:59 am Post subject: Crusades |
|
|
| Joel Whitmore wrote: | | Certainly the first Crusade is the most interesting to me also, especially when notices the small fact that the pope invented jihad as we know it today. |
Ummm, it's due to jihad that there was a Crusade at all... The Mohammedans had conquered the Holy Land which had previously been under the Roman Empire (called Byzantine Empire by some). Without that, there'd have been no need for a crusade.
Not that I'm a big fan of the crusades. The Fourth was pretty vile.
|
|
  |
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 11:16 am Post subject: Re: Crusades |
|
|
| Bob Uhl wrote: | | Joel Whitmore wrote: | | Certainly the first Crusade is the most interesting to me also, especially when notices the small fact that the pope invented jihad as we know it today. |
Ummm, it's due to jihad that there was a Crusade at all... The Mohammedans had conquered the Holy Land which had previously been under the Roman Empire (called Byzantine Empire by some). Without that, there'd have been no need for a crusade.
Not that I'm a big fan of the crusades. The Fourth was pretty vile. |
In my poorly informed opinion, I think that the crusades had more to do with trade and who controls the key points on the trade routs. Religion and religious differences were an excuse and emotional motivation but not a reason for the crusades. My opinion, and I reserve the right to be wrong 
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually its due to power politicing by the Pope that there were Crusades . The Turks had taken the HolyLand and it
took the Emperor Alexi a while to get an army together to take it back . While he's doing this he send the Pope
in a letter asking for assistance . He expects the Pope to act like any Roman Byzantine official and help out, mabey
a few hundered hired soldiers or some archers or something like that . At that time the western church was not all that centralized, local nobles appointing who they wanted to be bishops ect. but the Popes an abitious fellow and seizes
on this letter as a way to make the church the supreme power in the land . He pretty much oranized a huge PR campaigne
that offered neat things like " kill the infidel and his possesions will be yours " and sent out the clergy to spread the word .
Bumping people off and keeping thier stuff...who wouldn't sign up . The Second sons of Europes nobility flock to the idea
( these are the sons who won't be inheriting anything cause thier older brother gets it ) as there's all sorts of land for the
taking to set up the fief they'll never have otherwise and everyone who participates owes it all to Holy Mother Church .
The rest as they say is history the church IS the supreme power in Europe for the next 300 or so years and Europeans
Crusade to thier hearts content for 200 of those years . The Emperor by the way is horrified when the Crusaders show up and will only let them in in groups of five and sends them on thier way as fast as he can . This is
not what he had in mind at all and is worried ( rightfully so ) that they may even sack Constantinople. However they
head off and sack the first city they come to instead Eddesa an Eastern Orthadox Christian city .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic