| Author |
Message |
|
Peter Bosman
|
 Posted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | I neglected to mention earlier that the painting appears to be packed with symbols of uncertain meaning. |
Take the peacock.
At the time it could be found all over europe but was still very much confined to royalty and people of important means. It was also a religious symbol.
Quite a pretty bird on it's own too.
One could ask why the bird is sitting on the wall exactly where it appears to sit on the helmet and why not somewhere else. It seems poor composition if not on purpose.
It does not at all implicate this guy had peacocks 
peter
|
|
 |
 |
Sean Flynt
|
|
  |
|
|
Robin Palmer
Location: herne bay Kent UK Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have seen several illustrations which clearly show the knight riding in armour but no helmet his squire riding close attendance with his lance and helmet ready to pass them as needed. Which makes sense why keep a dog and bark yourself squires were there to carry his lords gear water spare weapons also haul his ass out of trouble if he got flattened. Great lords had dozens of squires to ensure his every need was catered for.
On the matter of holding visors open I have seen several very good accurate repros with small props and catches to hold visor up.
|
|
 |
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | Yep. There certainly was no unified "Italy" or "Germany" at the time of this painting. But perhaps you're thinking more of Kosovars and Basques today, eh Peter?  |
Those get coverage yes but in spain the catalan situation is the most acute concerning separatism.
The concept of 'nation' is complex and does not need to be interchangeable with 'state', 'country' or community of states or whatever.
If anything or anywhere in europe the frysian people in the northeast of the Netherlands have the strongest argument for an indigenous ' nation' yet it would be silly to see them as anything else than an integral part of the Dutch culture, the Dutch state; country, part of Europe.
Wether true or not it is potentially quite nasty stuff as it can be so easily manipulated into a perception of reality by individuals striving for power.
Anyway, back on topic: why indeed would a knight worth that name carry his own helmet? Even Don Quijotte had his squire 
peter
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good question and good discussion. I'm of the opinion that if a squire was available, he would have often carried the helm and perhaps spare equipment of other sorts. Slinging a helm over the shoulder would seem to be a temporary carry at best, for the reasons already mentioned. Perhaps the chain on the helm could have been looped over part of the saddle to keep it close, yet relatively secure when not on the knight's head.
For what it's worth, when I wore armor I would often attach my helmet with a snap link to the lower left side (in safer areas) or just leave it in the truck. And yes, some of us (conventional, not just SF) had access to and used AK series weapons. 
This topic has led me to wonder about other men-at-arms and their retainers or lack thereof. Would the non-noble men-at-arms have commonly used pages, or would they have simply helped each other with their armor? If they didn't have a servant, how might they have secured their horses and spare equipment when dismounting to fight on foot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Eschenbrenner wrote: | | Would the non-noble men-at-arms have commonly used pages, or would they have simply helped each other with their armor? If they didn't have a servant, how might they have secured their horses and spare equipment when dismounting to fight on foot? |
The common man was as a rule united in a brotherhood. These brotherhoods were tightknit communities like families. The brotherhood provided security and was VERY important and the members helped out eachother and their families very much.
They would be shoulder to shoulder in situation asking for arms.
Although the role has signifivantly changed, was ripped from its origins by the civil war, the brotherhoods are still alive here in Andalucia. Membership does not bring rights and obligations but it still implies open doors wihin the brotherhood. I am not andalucian, not even spanish, yet an accepted integrated member of the Hermandad de San Isidro Labrador. My membership was looked at with crooked eyes by most in the beginning but now all know we actually WORK on our farm and ARE ' brothers'.
The aswer is thus: the brotherhood.
peter
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, that strikes a chord with me. It's like having a "battle buddy" in the military today. You look after each other, and check each other's equipment before leaving the wire. And help each other into the taxi when you get blind drunk!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Eschenbrenner wrote: | | This topic has led me to wonder about other men-at-arms and their retainers or lack thereof. Would the non-noble men-at-arms have commonly used pages, or would they have simply helped each other with their armor? If they didn't have a servant, how might they have secured their horses and spare equipment when dismounting to fight on foot? |
Hmm...the Spanish Hermandad aside, I got the impression from 15th-century French and Burgundian documents that a servant was a required part of a man-at-arms retinue, regardless whether the man-at-arms in question was a member of the nobility or the gentry or neither. So there might be no such thing as a man-at-arms without a servant in these contexts. I'm still curious about how generalizable this example would be to other regions and time periods, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, let's hypothesize in a different region for a thought exercise. In the army of Edward I, for example, Robert Hardy lists the daily pay of a "sargeant with a barded horse" as 12d. That's twelve pence or one shilling for you Americans By comparison, a crossbowman earned 4d and an archer 2d per day. Thus it looks like your average man-at-arms could afford a servant at perhaps 1d or 2d per day out of his own pay. Maybe he would only be retained for the duration of the campaign if the man-at-arms could not usually afford to keep servants in his pay, whereas a noble knight might bring members of his own household to serve him on campaign.
This is another generalization, but servants make even more sense during the plate era. I can see an earlier man-at-arms putting on his hauberk and gambeson unaided, but a full plate harness does require some help. If your servant died of disease during the last siege, you might still need the 'buddy system' to get ready in the morning.
I also wonder about the division of labor between squires (ecuyers - how do I type accented e's?) and other servants. In some literature, squires are portrayed as young gentle-born servants who are essentially knights in training, and learn the trade through assisting their mentor knight with his horse, weapons, armor, etc. In other contexts, a squire is simply a man-at-arms from the nobility who has not been knighted. They would fight alongside the knights and lack only the gold spurs and honorific title, whereas the former description of a squire seems more like someone who'd stay behind with the spare horses and extra lances.
For me, what makes servants seem most necessary is not so much putting on armor - you can always find someone to help with that in a pinch - as the things that need to be done when you (the knight) are not around. The necessity of extra horses on long campaigns is obvious, as horses die or go lame. Horses require people to take care of them. Cooking needs to get done, along with mending equipment. You and the boys might be out foraging, pillaging, burning, or whatever, but someone's got to stay behind and make sure your tent doesn't blow away, the destrier gets fed, et cetera.
Oh, and you can always dine off your servants when they're standing around idle. Blackadder, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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