[Nathan Robinson]

There is a discussion of height found in This Separate Topic that has some links elsewhere. Let's keep this topic on-topic and move the discussion of average heights to its own venue.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Chad Arnow]

[Chad Arnow]

For more on armour weight, please see this Spotlight Topic.

[Jeffrey Hedgecock]

Rather than quote Bear's entire post, please refer to his first on page one.

I'm sorry, Bear, and no offense intended, but your info -requires- some substantiating references or other hard details to be taken seriously. As you've presented it, one cannot in the least take what you've said as factual, and in fact I initially thought it was some sort of awkward joke.

What Bear mentions contains nearly all the fallacies and misconceptions re. arms, armour, European martial arts & sports, and jousting and tournaments, all wrapped up in one.

As presented and given the current state of research, both academic and practical, I think most informed students and practitioners of European martial arts and reproduction armouring will find Bear's theories ridiculous at best. These appear to be all misconceptions and delusional theories promoted by many a Victorian armchair enthusiast, which the last 10 or more years of practical experimentation, exhaustive research and closely scrutinized study of surviving artifacts has attempted to dispel as complete and utter nonsense, though sadly unsuccessfully it seems.

(Not to blow my own horn, but for Bear's benefit and those who are unfamiliar with me or my work, I've been armouring professionally for 20 years, jousted internationally for 5, and count a couple of museum curators as friends.)

[Gregory J. Liebau]

To chime in to add to the list of those who have read a whole lot about historic jousting and also as one who has taken time to examine real armour while in Europe, I must say that as presented Bear's claims hold no water academically and have been shot down by the finest of modern historians. Immediately after I read his posts one word came to mind, to describe both his mindset and that of his "tutors."

Victorian.

Any convincing that needs to be done in this argument needs to come from him, not the rest of this collective body of scholars. The stance presented in the previous posts is now regarded academically as sound and about as convincing as it has been since the Victorian rubbish of the 18th and 19th centuries.

-Gregory-

[Robert Fullerton]

I tell you, it is nice to see so many knowledgable people out there on the acount of amour. The things I spoke of are things that I have seen first hand during my times in europe and trianing. I spent many years under the tutelage of various masters who had manucripts, books and techniques handed down to them thru generations and in them they show the heavy armour and also the devices for hoisting. I also have first hand seen authenitic items insome castles and museums and also seen authentic scripts and books in museums about it all also. I spent 20 years myself as a craftsman in the area of weapions and armour and 10 years of live-steel historical re-enactment in Europe also. Yet, I do respect your words and your credentials are impressive and congragualate you in keeping the old ways alive and well today. It's just that everyday there is almost a new discovery on things from the past. Just becasue someone doesnt' have the info at hand right away doesnt mean it's any less true or accurate than other information. We still today can not even begin to figure out how some things were done long ago. The longbow wasn't as detrimental in that one battle against the french, bronze plate armour from the bronze age can withstant armour piercing arows of the midieval ages, Damasacus with wootz metal isnt the same as damascus used today, chainmaile defended itself better against arrows than thought, etc... all thought different before later learning different. And all that just recently. It's just that i have learned and seen it first hand and worked aming it, so instead of worring about if i can find documentation somwhere (and i will when i can so that all can see it and we can expand further on this wonderful and indepth topic) how about we delve on how it could have been and why? what have we missed or do not know yet that we havent figures out yet or that still mystifies us. that is what is so fascinating about history and the ancients. their ability to do things that today would seem impossible.. i just was recently looking at some really amzing works on machines from the past that are still not understood nor could be copied or figured out today. tomorrow a dig can unearth a whole set of armour and hoist,,, or a french UFO.. lol.. who knows, but i would more like to delve on why they might have used hoists, and the methods for it... what lessons learned and where it might have gone, becasue since i have seen the evidence from authenitcated items, there must be some reason that it was such a way.. albeit it was a rarely done one and only lasted for a short while, which might be given the rise to think that it wasn't actually done.

[Gregory J. Liebau]

You have yet to say anything of substance. Your providing evidence through things "handed down through generations" is the most faulty part of the argument, considering that means you must have some links to Victorian study of arms and armour, which today is totally out-of-date and not considered academically useful in most cases.

We don't care what you said you've seen. No one's going to believe you until you can get your act together and show something for it. New discoveries are being made every day by people who take time to do their studying carefully and present it in formats that make it presentable to the academic world. They are not made by old-fashioned tutors who have backwards 19th century opinions of history. Those people are working with old, dusted and already useless "discoveries." You've given no reason for us to believe that there is any new discovery being made here nor that you're being logical at all in your presentation of your argument.

You've displayed a lack of concern for the historic evolution of jousting. This does not help you to present such an argument about the subject, especially one that has seemingly been refuted in the past by the academic community almost unanimously. For the sake of continuing the conversation in a decent fashion, I, as others have, request that you post real evidence for your argument or simply don't argue it further.

-Gregory-

[Nathan Robinson]

Well, Mr. Fullerton, many of your first-hand observations are quite opposite of those in the academic world, authors of these subjects, current museum curators, modern researchers, skilled armourers working today, etc. Many of these same people participate on this very site and have quite different first-hand experiences and accounts. Further, as mentioned above, there is quite a lot of direct evidence to contradict such things.

Because your observations are unique, I'd like to ask that you tell us who these masters are that you worked with. I'd like to have some sort of documentation or citing provided that supports these claims. I'd very much like to see one of these 200-pound armours or armouring hoists documented. Do these things exist in any known museum? Are they published? Where can I find them?

You mentioned seeing such items in castles and museums. Which ones? Surely these organizations must have some of their inventory published. I may have such published worked and would be happy to pull them out and look for you.

Thank you for your assistance.

[Robert Fullerton]

Most certainly Nathan and i will be pleased to track all of it down to be submitted to everyone. I am currently moving form one end of hte country to another and all is in storage and also I will ave to go back overseas to the places I have found them but I will do so.. and i shall send them to you once i have them all at hand so you can check thru them. thanks for being part of this and your help.

[Derek Wassom]

Can you please give us the names of the Masters you worked under?

[Gabriel Lebec]

[Stephen Hand]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Well, how about that, Master Hand and I agree on something. I have never seen any reference in 'classical' fencing to people being hoisted on horses... if you have seen such a treatise, Mr Pleasant, please indicate which school and even language group to which you refer. Masters , or bona fide maitres d'armes are few and far between, and those I have known are serious students of the art...I don't see why they would be perceived as encouraging the idea that armored combatants were hoisted on horses with winches as neither the lifting apparatus, nor the horse, is of any interest whatsoever to a properly trained master of fence. Maybe you have met people who claim to be masters of fencing in the same breath as they claim to have studied the aforementionned lifting apparatus, and other marvels as yet unrevealed to mere mortals... I know, this is snide and argumentative, but please , those of us who enjoy all types of fencing, including historical research, do not see why modern fencing needs to be so belittled. It's a great sport and serious practitioners are serious people, though they may not all be historians.

[Chad Arnow]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

That's fine. I plead guilty, but with an explanation. The comment referring to 'masters of classical fencing' in the same breath as ' which means they know little or nothing about ... ' could be viewed objectively as offensive to those of us who do engage in classical fencing, or have done so in the past. The moderators did not intervene at that time, leaving the door open to parade and riposte....This said, I will do my best not to take offense in the future when my friends and I are assumed to 'know little or nothing about...', and keep to mind how comforting it is to know that Mr Hand and I at least agree on something. I bear no malice nor rancor, nor do I know Mr Pleasant, but I do question why such an assumption of collective ignorance can be made without challenge when it is uncalled for and, need I repeat, offensive to those who dotake or have taken fencing seriously.

[Chad Arnow]

[Stephen Hand]

[Frank Lochocki]

Gentlemen: Back to the original topic regards cranes used to help men-at-arms mount. Tournement armour WAS and IS much hevier that war armour. Could this be a possible explaination? Has anyone ever seen period manuscript evidence of cranes being used? I would have to believe if cranes were ever used their would be some proof that has survived the centuries.

[Randall Pleasant]

Jean

I mis-read Robert Fullerton's post (speed reading at work) and thought he was referring to one or more masters of classical fencing as authorities on armour (he was not, my bad). Clearly a master of classical fencing know a lot....about classical fencing. However, armour is a subject outside of classical fencing. Thus, it simply raised a red flag with me when I thought (wrongly) that masters of classical fencing were being presented as authorities on armour without stating to what degree these people had actual conducted research on armour. If someone has actually preformed research then I have no problems giving them their dues. For example, I have a lot of respect for Master Sean Hays. At the 2006 WMAW event I attended his two classes on I.33 (Sword & Buckler). I strongly disagree with much of Sean's interpretations on I.33 but I do respect his interpretations because it is based on actually reading the material and picking up a sword. I respect Mr. Hays not only because his title was clearly earned but also because he does not project his title beyound what it was earned for.

Sorry for any confusion.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW