| Author |
Message |
|
J. Bedell
|
 Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: Arming Swords |
 |
|
Hello everyone,
I had a little question about arming swords. I wanted to know if arming swords were used during the crusades. Now, from what I understand an arming sword is a short sword carried as a secondary weapon usually used by an armored and/or mounted knight. Is this what an arming sword is or is there a different name for this? I was wondering if this type of short sword was used during the crusades or if the practice of carrying a secondary weapon (besides a dagger) came around later. Anyone have pics of original, reproduction, or artistic representations of early arming swords? Oh and one other question...how would an arming sword be classified.
So basically, what is an arming sword and were short swords used as a secondary weapon during the crusades?
-James
The pen may be mighter, but the sword is much more fun.
|
|
    |
 |
Jared Smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Arming sword" is a later term, used to describe non-longswords. The term is often used nowadays because it is shorter than "single-handed sword". If you carried a large sword, you might have a shorter backup sword - Renaissance landsknechts who carried zweihanders regularly are shown wearing a katzbalger as well.
The Crusades covered a long period, up to 1444 (Varna) and maybe later. Swords changed a lot during this time. Assuming you are interested in the earlier part of this period, longswords were not widely used in these times. Consequently, for Godfrey de Boullion, or Richard Lionheart, the idea of an "arming" sword would make little sense, since pretty much all swords were single-handed swords. It was not routine to carry more than one sword at that time, as far as I can remember.
In the later Crusades, longswords were widely used, so the idea of an arming sword came to be. These were not necessarily "short" swords - they might easily be as long as a "normal" sword of earlier times, but they were shorter than the longswords. And yes, they could be carried along with the bigger sword.
P.S. the Wikipedia article is inaccurate in one point - medieval men didn't always go carrying swords around in public. In Renaissance times this was very common, but this was a later development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: |
P.S. the Wikipedia article is inaccurate in one point - medieval men didn't always go carrying swords around in public. In Renaissance times this was very common, but this was a later development. |
It says for a Knight. Wouldn't Knights have their swords most of the time?
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
 |
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It seems they didn't carry swords most of the time. Everyone carried a dagger or knife, of course; and a man when travelling might well carry a sword. Looking at artwork, it seems to me that many scenes are notable for the absence of arms, except for soldiers, guards, etc. There were laws about this subject regulating the bearing of arms, although I cannot cite chapter and verse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang Armbruster
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: | | It seems they didn't carry swords most of the time. Everyone carried a dagger or knife, of course; and a man when travelling might well carry a sword. Looking at artwork, it seems to me that many scenes are notable for the absence of arms, except for soldiers, guards, etc. There were laws about this subject regulating the bearing of arms, although I cannot cite chapter and verse. |
The city-law of Landshut from the middle of the 13th century prohibts the wearing of swords and daggers for everyone, commoners and knights alike. However, while travelling you would want to wear at least a dagger or messer. There's an account from the late 15th century that suggests that people often had light crossbows with them when travelling over longer distances.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some of the detailed texts I have read on medieval topics ("John of Gaunt", etc.) paid a little bit of attention to this issue.
Regarding England, Normandy, and regions of the Dane's influnece, from around 800 AD to early 1250 many "enfifed" knights were effectively the local police for their region of responsibilty. Bearing the sword publically was considered necessary identification of their authority. As other forms of government (early House of Commons, development of major city centers with full time militia, etc.) developed this practice deminished. I won't claim to know just how rapidly or broad spread the practice died out.
The "priveledge" of titled (nobility) knights being permitted to wear swords outside of tournament and military campaigns (including royalty such as John of Gaunt) was in fact threatened by proposed legislative restrictions for some city areas more than once between 1375 and 1400. The right of titled nobility knights to bear swords publically in most places in England continued at this time, although just a couple members of royal familes are the only known opponents against such restrictions on when and where knights could bear arms in England by 1400 AD.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The first 'definition' of an arming sword I came across was a sword (of varying length) that was suspended from your horse's saddle. Wearing of swords in public was far more common during the Renaissance, but those who had a horse (and who were also allowed to own at least one sword), he could attach its scabbard to the horse's saddle. If this is so, then it was likely done only by knights and other nobility rather than a commoner.  -Ted
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This sounds like the older interpretation of "Bastard sword", litterally "pack saddle sword".
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Edward Hitchens wrote: | | The first 'definition' of an arming sword I came across was a sword (of varying length) that was suspended from your horse's saddle. Wearing of swords in public was far more common during the Renaissance, but those who had a horse (and who were also allowed to own at least one sword), he could attach its scabbard to the horse's saddle. If this is so, then it was likely done only by knights and other nobility rather than a commoner. -Ted |
Could be a case of words changing meaning over time ?
Early meaning being " armed " as in being in armour for battle and having an arming ( BIG ) sword.
Later meaning being out of armour but armed with an easy to carry around sword of more modest dimensions when travelling and not expecting serious trouble?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremiah Swanger
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Jun, 2006 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Edward Hitchens wrote: | | The first 'definition' of an arming sword I came across was a sword (of varying length) that was suspended from your horse's saddle. Wearing of swords in public was far more common during the Renaissance, but those who had a horse (and who were also allowed to own at least one sword), he could attach its scabbard to the horse's saddle. If this is so, then it was likely done only by knights and other nobility rather than a commoner. -Ted |
Could be a case of words changing meaning over time ?
Early meaning being " armed " as in being in armour for battle and having an arming ( BIG ) sword.
Later meaning being out of armour but armed with an easy to carry around sword of more modest dimensions when travelling and not expecting serious trouble? |
That's possible, but I'm thinking the term "arming sword" was meant to discern a beefier, military single-hand sword from a riding sword or side sword, which were lighter, had finer edges, and were generally more dressy.
"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."
- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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