Read 'sword in hand' by Ewart oakeshott sold exclusivly by arms&armor he discusses this topic thuroughly, long swords used in this era,oakeshott says that many of the ''later'' long swords are actually from around the crusades a&a even makes one of these swords. in fact though many may take me for a fool long swords were probably more common during the crusades than we believe currently. surcoats seen in peiod art halve no sleeves thats not to say though that there werent any. in fact many parts of the film are accurate atleast more accurate than many holywood films. we know they had longswords or greteswerds but we do not now exactly how they were used as there are not fight manuals from this period, like fiore or talhoffer. the maille should look different as it should be riveted and flat.
one of the funniest parts is when ridley scott said he thought about using plate armour in the film.

You will find this thread interesting & relevant:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...mp;start=0

So, Do you know if there are any more paintings showing them wearing lamellar with that pauldrons over the sleeves?
Is that true that, at least cavalry, used mail too? (Like gloves, boots, etc...) Any appeareance in art...?

I have found a few more of those armours with pauldrons.
Its a bit hard to realize that they were made of steel from the paintings, Do you know if they used to paint them?
Is there any image (Art) showing How byzantine horse armour looked like?

So, talking about swords, What do you think about the use of the two handed Danish axe with mail armour?

---

 Attachment: 48.04 KB



 Attachment: 43.53 KB



 Attachment: 25.84 KB



 Attachment: 90.07 KB
[ Download ]

Thanks for the link! Very interesting.
My brother found this site on the subject: http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/swor...words.html
Maybe some of you will find it interesting.

Very interesting. Some blades are really wide and massive...

Hi.
What do you think then about Sarracen soldiers, Did they used some king of surcoat or something like that to aboid being cooked by the sun?

It depends on your definition of "surcoat." Cloth overgarments seemed to have been fairly common, but often we have no way of telling whether these were just cloth or reinforced with metal pieces in the manner of a contemporary European coat-of-plates. Try checking the armors depicted here:

http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/index.html

One thing I'd have to say about no curved swords in use by Saladins forces - the Fatamids had already started "importing" turkish soldiers early on, IIRC the Islamic armies were making use of them as early as the 9th century. They gradually became a larger percentage of forces in the army through time, and these very well may have been using curved swords. However, these curved swords would have likley only been used by the Turkish contingents, and depending one their size is how prevalent they would have been.

The "Mamluk" dynasty was when the soldier slaves (which is the definition of mamluk) took power themselves. It does not mean there were not numbers of Turkic soldiers used by the muslims prior to this.

It's been a while since I've seen the extended-version of KoH's documentary, but I believe they did say they knew straight blades on the Saracens were "right" but (being a movie) they knew that the general public thinks Saracen/Muslim=curved swords, so, they went with that.


It's not a "historically correct" movie (though the extended version did make more sense), but, compared to any other medievalish movie I can think of, did go out of their way to get stuff right more when possible.

Here is something that may ne of interest:

http://www.umich.edu/~eng415/topics/war/Islamic_Swords.html

Quote:

Islamic Swords During the time of the Crusades, the Muslim forces used both straight edged and curved swords. The straight swords are tapering, "with very small guards and pommels. Straight swords of similar design, and probably of twelfth- or thirteenth-century date, are preserved in the arsenal of the Sultans in Istanbul" (North, 41). Very few Islamic swords of the period have been found. Most of the swords that have been preserved were decorative, or ceremonial. Much can be learned, however, from manuscripts dating from the time. The curved single edged sword used by the Muslim forces during the crusades is discussed by the literature on the subject both as a sabre (Nicolle 329) and as a scimitar (Bradford 100). These two terms have slight differences in overtones. A sabre is a curved, single edged sword that has traditionally been used on horseback. The scimitar is a curved, single edged sword that has its origins in the Orient. No literature that I have yet found discusses the differences to my satisfaction. Perhaps either term can be used with equal authority. Agreed upon is the actual description of the weapon and its use. The sabre (as I will now call it) is curved with a single edge. There is a slight thickening of the blade toward the tip, no pommel, and the hilt itself is curved along the same line as the blade (Nicolle 329). "The crescent-shaped Arabic and Asiatic scimitar was an excellent cutting weapon, particularly when used by a mounted warrior since it was lighter and enjoyed more flexibility in use than the Norman sword"(Bradford 100).

As to the surcoat with sleeve's question, the only ones in the movie which I know of are the robes (as worn by Tiberias being the most visible). I believe as portrayed in the movie that these were only used by Crusaders in a ceremonial context and not in battle. Any other sleeves you see are gambesons/arming shirts.

As for the argument of what mail was called in antiquity; I typically identify it as just chain mail :wtf: ; forgoing what may or may not be historically correct. I know it was called different things in antiquity, but c'mon, you don't call a sword a sverd, schwert, hjorr, spada, or меч normally - unless referring to a specific historical example or maker's model. I don't think the modern scholars have a problem know what I am talking about when I say wedge-riveted chain mail hauberk nor have I been corrected on it before.

The Director's Cut of KoH was a little more accurate and is eons better than the theatrical release in my opinion. It's still very far off base for the historical cases of the parties portrayed, there are so many things wrong they would be difficult to list in this thread. The only person halfway accurately portrayed in the movie was Reynold (my favorite character in the film, btw...) However, its alot better than the run of the mill Hollywood garbage cluttering the screen these days.

Two-handers in that time period? Why not. Maximus throws a gladius 100 yards and kills a Praetorian on a horse in Gladiator. After all, its Hollywood.