Author |
Message |
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Thu 18 Jan, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah. Well. The poleaxe wasn't always a very long weapon, and I can easily envision it hanging upside-down from the saddle like a mace or attached to the rider's hip with a ring on a belt he wore over the waist of the cuirass. For a less extreme choice, Italian men-at-arms were known for their tendency to carry short battleaxes as their secondary weapons, and the presence of the usual spike and hook on these battleaxes would have made them effective weapons for dismounted (or unhorsed?) use.
Overall, the list does not look particularly strange or "wrong." And Type XX longswords were probably still in use, although some of them would have been re-hilted when their old hilts wore away. Still, even in the 17th century we can see mounted men carrying essentially medieval blades, both in unmodified and re-hilted versions.
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Thu 18 Jan, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Overall, the list does not look particularly strange or "wrong." And Type XX longswords were probably still in use, although some of them would have been re-hilted when their old hilts wore away. |
I don´t know the weight of the TXX swords, and as far as i know these are very big weapons, Did that type of swords had sccabards?
Thanks
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
They didn't seem to have been considerably larger than other longswords. I believe you've checked this Features page?
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxx.html
And this is one of the most accurate production-line replicas of type XX sowrds--you could check the stats:
http://www.myArmoury.com/review_alb_vice.html
(How I wish I could track down the stats of the A&A custom pieces! They 'd make good material for comparison.)
As for scabbards, I believe most of them would have come with one. A belt ring, of course, is also possible.
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Chad. And now I'm feeling a bit stupid because the link to that review was there, plain at the bottom of the Type XX article--yet I missed it!
*headdesk*
(Seems like there are no "embarrassed" smilies on the board?)
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
No Lafayette, i´m embarrased, i have seen the custom XX sword some time ago and i didn´t noticed the foto with the sword´s sccabard.
But in the type XX swords feature, there are some huge examples of those swords, but as it was said bebore, they might not be very common blades.
About Papal Heavy Cavalry, Did they had to swear fidelity to the pope, and were financed by him, or they were volunteer men-at-arms?
Thanks.
P.D.
Take a look to the following helm.
Attachment: 35.01 KB
The description said: ¨Helmet of the knight rider of Ehrenburg¨
Attachment: 37.37 KB
Italian Longsword, not sure if Type XX sword, but i guess so with the number of fullers. The site described it as longsword, giving no other details. A beutiful specimen.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | About Papal Heavy Cavalry, Did they had to swear fidelity to the pope, and were financed by him, or they were volunteer men-at-arms? |
Both, I believe--and more than just those two. The Papal States utilized various mixtures of religious volunteers, secular vassals/retainers, and professional mercenaries in its military forces.
As for the sword, it seems close enough to what we'd consider a Type XXa. Is it a reproduction arms site? If so, it's probably some form of the "Mercenary" (brand name, not historical descriptor) sword reviewed here:
http://www.myArmoury.com/review_vala_merc.html
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don´t remember the site, but it was a replica one. I truly don´t like the ¨Mercenary¨, it´s a very low quality sword. I don´t think that medieval and renaissance armourers made such quality swords, it would break in the first impact. I have seen worst swords and I think that is not honest to make such low quality swords. The sword showed before is very similar to the ¨Mercenary¨, but a ore beautiful version. The custom XX sword is a truly awesome replica sword.
I was searching in Google but i couldn´t find much info about the Papal Heavy Cavalry battles, only the battle of Ravenna. Do you know any other battle in wich those guys were involved?
Thanks.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sat 20 Jan, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe you'd like to check this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_states
The Holy See itself did not seem to have fought many wars out and out--most of the wars it participated in could be best described as proxy wars. I don't specialize in its history, though, so I may be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the Papacy in the 16th century engaged mostly in proxy wars, but if you don't mind looking at earlier centuries then it might be a good idea to check up on the battle of Civitate, the siege of Rome, and perhaps the battle of Cortenuova. In general terms, you'd get lots of information by googling on the quarrels between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire, especially in the reigns of Henry IV, Frederick I (Barbarossa), and Frederick II.
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
And some of their proxy wars were french Wars of Religion, sending the Papal Heavy Cavalry to help christians?
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | And some of their proxy wars were french Wars of Religion, sending the Papal Heavy Cavalry to help christians? |
Well, Catholics at any rate.
At about the same point in time (1580's), the Pope was also offering the King of Spain the gift of a major cash subsidy, to be paid upon news of Spanish soldiers landing in England to begin the reconquest of heretic England for The Faith. Christians of both brands seemed a great deal more interested in slaughtering each other than in, oh, say reconquering Hungary, the Balkans or Holy Land from the Turks. There were a few voices in the wilderness crying out for this sort of reunification of Christendom for that purpose, but they were widely praised and as widely ignored.
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, to answer the question more directly, the Holy See in the 16th century didn't seem to have sent its own retainers or paid soldiers out of its own pocket to serve in the Italian Wars, but instead provided its allies with diplomatic backing and financial subsidies. So they gave the money to the allies and let those allies use the money to equip/maintain their forces as best as they could.
There might have been small numbers of troops directly in Papal pay, though. We know that there were the Swiss Guards but they weren't really a battlefield formation. Maybe there were a few other cadres or mercenary groups that got paid directly from the Church's coffers.
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry if i haven´t used the term Christian properly.
I was browsing this site and i´ve found the different ¨countries¨ armies, and i was wondering (Remember my condottieri/ Papal heavy cavalry?) if heavy cavalry used only two weapons, a primary and a secondary (Without counting a maybe dagger), or they could have some others?
Something that i forgot to ask is if the page system was still used during XVI century. Thanks to all!
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course they carried more than two weapons! A standard equipment for a man-at-arms would have included at least four weapons--a lance, an arming sword, a mace/axe slung on the saddle, and a dagger. Then he'd also probably have a longsword slung from the saddle as well--that's five. And he might have left a poleaxe with his valet in the camp. That's six.
About pages...well, personal instruction was certainly still the most common way of producing heavy mounted men-at-arms, but I don't knwo whether it was still done with the old page-and-squire system. Gordon, your company deals with the French cavalry at aroudn that timeframe, right? Have you collected some information about the training of the men? The standards expected from them before they can join the company?
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Mon 22 Jan, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Of course they carried more than two weapons! A standard equipment for a man-at-arms would have included at least four weapons--a lance, an arming sword, a mace/axe slung on the saddle, and a dagger. Then he'd also probably have a longsword slung from the saddle as well--that's five. And he might have left a poleaxe with his valet in the camp. That's six. |
I was told that arming swords (The old single handed knightly broad sword) were not longer in use by that time, but surely i´m wrong, What kind of arming sword were still used by that time?
Thanks.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
Posted: Mon 22 Jan, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette;
I haven't found much hard information on the training of men during the 16th Century, certainly none for Cavalry at least. I have a treatise from the 17th Century, but I rather suspect that the earlier era owed more to the Medieval system of training youths in the arts of war than the later era did.
There certainly were pages and grooms who followed their masters to war, and in fact a unit of Cavalry wasn't complete without them servants of some kind in tow. For say, a Company of Gendarmes in the French Royal Army of the 1560's, it would, for a "50-Lance Company" consist of 30 hommes d'armes and 60 archiers . Each of the homes d'armes would have two-to--three War Horses and a nag, while the archier would have his single War Horse and a nag. The nag was usually for the page/groom/boy to ride in order to keep up with the unit on the march, and he'd be carrying all of the spare kit for both of them on his horse (and in the case of the homme d'armes, leading the spare War Horse[s]). This system actually continued well into the 17th Century, as the Horse of the English Civil Wars were still organized with a Trooper and a Boy, each mounted, as a basic component of the unit. The trooper's job was fighting, the boy's job was to take care of the horses, cook if need be, mend, polish, clean and in general do all of the things that in a normal army of the period would be taken care of by camp followers, and in later armies was done by the soldiers themselves. (Now they use civilian contractors, so we're back full circle again.)
However, I would say that for the most part the youths so employed weren't specifically there for the purpose of learning the art of war, though I'm sure that in some instances it was indeed the case, especially with regards to the entrourages of Great Lords. There are a lot of variables, but mostly it boils down to it being something that I just haven't bothered to look into very much.
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Tue 23 Jan, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | I was told that arming swords (The old single handed knightly broad sword) were not longer in use by that time, but surely i´m wrong, What kind of arming sword were still used by that time? |
No way! Like I said, many one-handed medieval swords remained in use well into the 17th century, sometimes unchanged but usually in re-hilted form. The Renaissance broadsword (or the broader end of the German definition of "rapier") was essentially a medieval arming sword (if we choose to use the term "arming sword" as a catchall term for one-handed cut-and-thrust swords) with the addition of a complex hilt.
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
Posted: Tue 23 Jan, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, thanks.
I was wondering about daggers, i know that there are not specific daggers for a knid of soldier. But, did gendares, or at least italian men-at-arms used stilettos? I mean, is a very thin dagger, a good choice against joints and gaps (If the other gendarme is unhorsed or in an inferior condition, of course)
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
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
|