| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Tue 14 Mar, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: Thoughts on date/locale of ArmArt sword |
 |
|
Hey folks,
I have a sword by ArmArt that's been in my collection for a few years now. I like it a lot (and I feel lucky to have actually received it). I've been thinking about getting a helm from the same era/locale as the sword, but I'm not exactly sure where it falls. I have it listed in my collection as from the 13th century based on what their website used to say, though it would probably have to be early in that century if that's correct. I think it is earlier, say the 11th or 12th century. What do you guys think?
Also, what Oakeshott type would you call the blade? The fuller length is more typical of type XII, but the blade width and taper aren't really. Could it be called a Type XI with a short fuller? Any thoughts on its type?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Mar, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, I have one of those in the shop......... It could be a XII, it could be a XIIIb. If the fuller was longer, maybe a Xa......
I'd guess either a XII or a XIIIb, but it'd be a bit early for a XIIIb.
Maybe a XII with very little profile taper, and a real spatulate point........ or a very early XIIIb.
I think you're pretty good on the date guess........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Ren
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Mar, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It could be one of those blades that Oakshot would put into one category even though it fit another if he had made a subtype for the hand and a half version. I can only find one at the moment that he did that with but I think there may be a few others. He says about a XIIIa. that if he had made a subtype for XIa's he would have put this sword in that group but that he has to put it in with the XIIIa's ( see XIIIa.11 in "Records of the Medieval Sword" on page 105).
Very nice sword by the way. This time period is my favorite... Alex
|
|
   |
|
Alexander Ren
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Mar, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oakshot dates that sword I was talking about to possibly as early as 1100 all the way up to 1250. Within that time period and the decoration on your sword, I think that it would go well with Crusader/Templar/Hospitaller context.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don Stanko
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Mar, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chad. I checked my library and it seems your suspicions were correct. Hoffmeyer has it catagorized between 1100 and 1200 a.d. The pommel, guard and blade all seem to match perfectly. I'm not sure what catagory it would fall into with Oakeshott though.
Don
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Mar, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the input, guys. So it looks like the sword is better dated 1100-1200.
Would it be more appropriate to pair this with a Norman conical helm or would a flat-topped pot helm with a face mask be appropriate, too?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Mar, 2006 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Thanks for the input, guys. So it looks like the sword is better dated 1100-1200.
Would it be more appropriate to pair this with a Norman conical helm or would a flat-topped pot helm with a face mask be appropriate, too? |
As a general observation I sort of wonder how much overlap there was in what was typical gear at any specific time: When fashion or innovations in armour and arms happened I would assume some early adopters, some very conservative or poor users of out of fashion armour / arms, and also regional preferences meaning that one might see armour typical of one period being used along side what we assume belonging to another.
Rich Nobles might adopt the newest fashions quickly and then past along their older out of fashion gear to their Sergeants and then the Sergeants would pass on their even older stuff down the food chain: A rich mid 14th century Knight might wear considerable plate while his retainers might look a lot like 13th century mostly maille clad warriors of the previous generation with maybe a few pieces of limited plate. Most of the period illustrations, if showing the rich nobles, would not also show those still using the out of date stuff ???
This period overlap fuzziness might be over a span of 50 to a maximum of 100 or at most 150 years ??? Any other guesses how wide in time the overlap might be ?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Ren
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Mar, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Thanks for the input, guys. So it looks like the sword is better dated 1100-1200.
Would it be more appropriate to pair this with a Norman conical helm or would a flat-topped pot helm with a face mask be appropriate, too? |
Either one of those sound good. I personally am a fan of the great helm so the I would vote for the face masked precursor helm.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic