| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Wed 15 Sep, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I agree with Kel that the event did not happen as alleged in the source, but it is irrelevant in any case. The original post was about swords, not axes.
|
|
  |
 |
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Sep, 2010 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Fuller wrote: | | Oakeshott himself said that a knight without his horse was like a tank without an engine. 90% of the time, he fought from horseback, whereas the majority of modern WMA enthusiasts and re-enactors "fight" on foot, and miss a primary and vitally important part of medieval fighting technique. |
This subject matter is highly problematic since it is difficult to make accurate generalizations from the limited period sources. However, I am not sure I would agree with the assessment about knights fighting 90% of the time on horseback. For one thing, we have more than just the occasional reference to knights fighting dismounted in battle, and not just in the Hundred Years War and Late Middle Ages, but also in the High Middle Ages- the instance that comes readily to mind from memory is the Battle of Lincoln, I believe the one in 1141.
Of course, battles of this sort were not necessarily that common, so the 90% generalization still stands- or does it? Consider how often knights were involved in sieges during the Middle Ages. Many historians have gone so far to say that medieval warfare was siege warfare, and while this distorts reality, it does indicate one of the major elements of warfare from that time. While there certainly could be mounted fighting during a siege, much of the fighting that took place would have been dismounted. Yes, I grant you that many sieges were wars of attrition, but we also know of numerous sieges that ended through military action, and this military action would largely be on foot.
Likewise, we know that in tournaments, when knights were knocked from their horse, they would often engage their opponent on foot. This might not be warfare, technically, but it still involved fighting on foot.
For these reasons, I don't think we can characterize knightly warfare as being mounted as exclusively as you have, Peter. I would agree that fighting on horseback constituted the majority of knightly warfare, but your figure of 90% seems a bit high, in light of what I've discussed here.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Sep, 2010 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | Peter Fuller wrote: | | Oakeshott himself said that a knight without his horse was like a tank without an engine. 90% of the time, he fought from horseback, whereas the majority of modern WMA enthusiasts and re-enactors "fight" on foot, and miss a primary and vitally important part of medieval fighting technique. |
This subject matter is highly problematic since it is difficult to make accurate generalizations from the limited period sources. However, I am not sure I would agree with the assessment about knights fighting 90% of the time on horseback. For one thing, we have more than just the occasional reference to knights fighting dismounted in battle, and not just in the Hundred Years War and Late Middle Ages, but also in the High Middle Ages- the instance that comes readily to mind from memory is the Battle of Lincoln, I believe the one in 1141.
|
Craig, very good point and if we compare a mounted knight as a tank or as fighter plane attacking the ground when dealing with ground troops, or a high altitude bombing etc ...... At the end the fight always end up with feet on the ground even if only to accept the enemies' surrender: The knight's cavalry charge breaks an infantry formation ( when it works ), pursue fleeing enemies but often have to dismount to support their own infantry, fight on foot in the last stages of a siege after a wall has been breached. 
On ships fighting would not be on horseback for certain. 
So unless the tactical conditions of battle favour fighting on horseback a knight or any other type of cavalry will often have to get off the horses to fight.
Skill fighting on foot is indispensable and unavoidable: Can you imagine the case of extremely successful and competent cavalry warriors who would become totally incapable of fighting should they have to fight on foot.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Sep, 2010 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
Well, I don't much care if you or anyone else takes me seriously or not. I've read plenty of bogus opinions on this site, as well as some pretty good ones. But I am still not aware of any DENIALS from contemporary English sources regarding this event, either close to the actual date of the event or generations later. Are you? If so, then produce them. If you can't, than your opinion is no better than mine, and in fact, if there is no such denial at all, than it's even less to be regarded. Peter Fuller, a man I hold in high respect, is at least open to the idea that it could indeed have happened, and that's good enough for me. I can't prove it did, though every source available says so (I've done some checking, they ALL say the same thing). You can't prove it didn't, and so far have produced nothing to back up your statement. You just seem to want to deny it out of hand. I don't consider that a worthwhile argument. As has been said before, absolute comments regarding anything are simply the sign of a closed mind. I, on the other hand, am open to anything, and am unafraid to go against popular opinion, despite all the outraged clucking. I never learned anything form someone who agreed with me. |
Jeff,
As this forum deals with historical arms and most contributors supply documentation when available, I don't think it is out of order to insist on a more rigorous standard than "(I've done some checking, they ALL say the same thing)!"
Why would we find any evidence of English denial for an assertion made in a Scots romance produced two generations after the alleged event? Especially since it is an assertion not found in any Scots chronicle in that period, within the same period Fordun (Gesta Annalia) nor in the most likely source within the next two generations afterward - Bower's Scotichronicon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotichronicon Its not like there was an internet news service blasting allegations across the border. 
There is not a word of the incident in the English source - the Lanercost Chronicle written shortly thereafter. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/lanercost.htm Neither is there a single mention of it in Scalacronica, by Sir Thomas Gray in the late 14thC written while imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle where one would suspect he might be taunted with such a tale. In fact - if you've checked ALL the sources one might question what they must be because not of word of the incident or any denial of it can be found in any sources of the time. Say in this list : http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dhi0www/mcpproject.htm!
If your sources are dated in the nineteenth century - you must take them as suspect. Especially anything written by Sir Walter Scott and his following. I have a remarkable number of 19th to early 20th century textbooks and novels that regurgitate the story wholesale, often embellishing it with the colour of the horses, banners and what-not - details that are missing in Barbour's account of the incident.
Really Jeff. Check ALL the sources.
|
|
 |
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Sep, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | Jeff,
As this forum deals with historical arms and most contributors supply documentation when available, I don't think it is out of order to insist on a more rigorous standard than "(I've done some checking, they ALL say the same thing)!"
Why would we find any evidence of English denial for an assertion made in a Scots romance produced two generations after the alleged event? Especially since it is an assertion not found in any Scots chronicle in that period, within the same period Fordun (Gesta Annalia) nor in the most likely source within the next two generations afterward - Bower's Scotichronicon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotichronicon Its not like there was an internet news service blasting allegations across the border.
There is not a word of the incident in the English source - the Lanercost Chronicle written shortly thereafter. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/lanercost.htm Neither is there a single mention of it in Scalacronica, by Sir Thomas Gray in the late 14thC written while imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle where one would suspect he might be taunted with such a tale. In fact - if you've checked ALL the sources one might question what they must be because not of word of the incident or any denial of it can be found in any sources of the time. Say in this list : http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dhi0www/mcpproject.htm!
If your sources are dated in the nineteenth century - you must take them as suspect. Especially anything written by Sir Walter Scott and his following. I have a remarkable number of 19th to early 20th century textbooks and novels that regurgitate the story wholesale, often embellishing it with the colour of the horses, banners and what-not - details that are missing in Barbour's account of the incident.
Really Jeff. Check ALL the sources. |
Well, here we go into another circular argument that cannot be proven one way or the other. But I will try to respond in as useful a manner as I can.
You first, Dan. While the post itself speaks of swords, the title says "Cut armor in Maciejowski Bible." To me, that means CUT ARMOR, with anything capable of cutting it as depicted in the Bible. And there are other weapons besides swords cleaving men in the pictures, like some two-handed polearm of some sort cutting a man through the middle, stylized entrails and all. So an axe isn't at all out of order. At least not to me.
As for what did or did not happen at Bannockburn, I have said repeatedly (and as often disregarded) that I am not sure of my ground regarding what can be cloven, or how, or with what. But I'll put my money on a heavy battle axe before a sword for sure . But i do believe armor, while undoubtedly saving it's owner far more times than it didn't, still failed all the time, just as Kevlar fails all the time today. But I will never agree with an absolute OPINION (which is all it is) that this event did not happen. I maintain that it probably did, or something close to it did. I can't prove it did, I freely admit. But you can't prove it didn't either. So there's the difference between us.
Now to Kel.
There is no need for me to post sources about this event. Anyone can Google the battle of Bannockburn and read about this encounter between the Bruce and de Bohun. There are countless sites relating the story, some very detailed, others less so. For instance, my good old Encyclopedia Brittannicas have a small article of the battle, but there is no mention of the fight between the Bruce and de Bohun. Am I then to believe THIS version, which is abbreviated, over other more detailed versions of this battle which ALL relate this encounter prior to the battle, just because it suits what I want to believe? That would be deceptive at best, and outright dishonest at worst.
As for why there are no records of this event in the annals you posted, well, why would there be? A simple knowledge of human nature could easily explain this omission. For one, why would the English have ANY interest in putting the Bruce on a pedestal, especially considering the drubbing they just got at the hands of an "inferior" people, the Scots. The arrogance of Henry de Bohun's attack on the Bruce, supposedly in full view of both armies, is perfectly in line with the arrogance of the invading English and their utter contempt for the Scots. Further, Henry de Bohun wanted some quick easy glory, and so I have no doubt that this was attempted in full view of both sides, as is related in so many versions of this event. The English were dismayed, the Scots elated, who let out a roar of triumph. All the Bruce said when he casually returned to his men who chastised him for being so reckless, was "I have broken my good battle axe." What magnificent aplomb, if true.
Besides, the lack of a particular event recorded in a particular annal or chronicle could be because of many factors. The politics of the day. An incorrect narration. A deliberate omission for any number of reasons. Sloppy recording. Lost records. On and on. You don't seem to recognize that although Barbour's narration was put down some sixty years later, he may have had access to records now lost to us. Or do you think every piece of paper written over seven hundred years ago survived to this day? They don't, believe me. Most is lost to the hazards of time. So you DO NOT KNOW if Barbour knew something we today don't. It seems reasonable that he could have spoken with men present at the battle, and so, even many years later, could have had first-hand accounts by veterans of that day. In fact, I for one am quite certain that he did. Here is a link of my own-http://www.bartleby.com/212/0502.html
Now for Sir Thomas Gray-I fail to see why you think he MUST have written this down. Why? He was a prisoner in Edinburgh castle. If he was mocked with this by his jailers, as you theorize, why would he want to immortalize a guy that his keepers used to torment him with (if this even happened-this is pure speculation on your part, and as such is worth little). I'm sure he had more important things on his mind than turning his jailer's heroes into even bigger ones.
By the way, your third link doesn't work.
And what's up with the snide internet comment? That's simply a ridiculous statement, like Dan's star-throwing Ninjas. Ever hear of horse messengers? They'd been around for THOUSANDS of years before this battle. The Pony Express didn't start in America. I have no doubt that right after the battle riders were sent North, South, East and West with the news. I'll bet money that within a week all of Scotland knew about the outcome.
Here's yet another reason why this incident may not be recorded everywhere, especially in the more abbreviated versions of the battle. Because it was an individual act of heroics, and was not by itself battle-altering. The Scots still could have lost if not managed properly. So it was a memorable event of the day, but not by itself history-changing. A darn good story regardless, made even better if it actually happened, which, as far as am concerned, it did. Or something close to it.
And as for Sir Henry de Bohun- while his birthday seems to be unknown, his death-day is July 23rd, 1314. So he died from SOMETHING that day. Maybe it was the flu, huh? He COULDN'T have died from an axe-blow to the head by the Bruce, right? Nope. Impossible. No way. Why? Because Kel says so!
So you believe what you want and throw around all the sources you want. So far they are not convincing. I will stick with mine. But even Peter Fuller, who has sparred fiercely with me over whether armor can be cut with this or that, doesn't seem to question the incident itself, just what happened WITHIN the incident. Fair enough. "Cloven" can mean many things, from a helm, mail etc. split down to the chin, to a crushed in helmet, to a partial split. Who can say, outside of a medieval forensics expert examining de Bohun's body on a slab. Hey, that would be a pretty cool show-"Medieval Forensics." We don't even know what de Bohun wore under his helm. Maybe he didn't use his skullcap. Sometimes they didn't. Maybe he was so full of himself, so over-confident, that he figured "I don't need all this armor against these Scottish dogs." Who can say? I can't. Nor can you. So many factors to consider. History is an inexact science. If you want certainty, be a mathematician. That absolute attitude doesn't work with such a nebulous and uncertain thing as history.
Anyway, Peter keeps an open mind, and even when he disagrees, he is courteous. He told me once that he strives for the knightly ideal of chivalry in his life, and judging by his behavior even when we disagreed vehemently, and we have, he was always chivalrous in his behavior. We have fought as hard as we can with each other with our verbal arguments, but it was enjoyable, because it was done like adults, not children in a playground screaming "Did too!" "Did not!" That's a pointless circular argument, and for me at least is no fun because it's not intellectually satisfying. It's just another internet flame war. If I want to fight, I'll go to a redneck bar and flirt with somebody's girlfriend. That's not why I come hear. I come hear for an enlightening debate. It's a shame that so often I don't find it.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Sep, 2010 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Folks,
Let's not go any further down this path. There are better ways to handle this than how a few of you are doing so.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Sep, 2010 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Jeff, you still haven't listed a single primary source supporting your claim. Britannica and Wikipedia are lucky to be considered secondary sources. An eyewitness account would be best but anything written around the time in question would do as a starting point. Secondary sources are a waste of time unless we know where the evidence was drawn from and can trace it back.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Sep, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Jeff, you still haven't listed a single primary source supporting your claim. Britannica and Wikipedia are lucky to be considered secondary sources. An eyewitness account would be best but anything written around the time in question would do as a starting point. Secondary sources are a waste of time unless we know where the evidence was drawn from and can trace it back. |
I thought I had. What's wrong with "The Bruce" by John Barbour? Yes, yes, I know, he was a Scottish patriot and all that. But even so, he was contemporary with some old veterans of the battle of Bannockburn I am quite sure. And being a Scottish patriot does not by itself disqualify his writings. I have read that, notwithstanding his patriotism for his country he seems to have always made a conscious effort to be fair. I find it inconceivable that during his whole adult life he never spoke to a SINGLE veteran of that campaign, some of which would still be alive. If the Bruce DID perform this deed, I'm sure that EVERY SINGLE Scottish soldier knew the story, and some that were still alive may have actually SEEN it. I don't know what else I can provide, outside of 8 x 10 glossies signed by the Bruce himself, that would suffice. Nothing, I guess. But to utterly dismiss something that has been WIDELY accepted as a fact in SOME sense, I find equally hard to believe. It is so widely accepted that you can even find 54mm miniatures of these guys, the Bruce with his axe and Henry de Bohun with his lance, as well as a description of their place in history. Henry de Bohun, a former constable of England, was, by all accounts, far and wide, killed by the Bruce in front of BOTH armies as Henry tried to take out the Bruce while all alone on a small palfrey between the armies, not fully dressed for battle, and holding an axe. Bohun recognized him by the crown on his helmet, and rashly attacked, to his death. That's his main claim to fame, as fodder for the Bruce's axe. That's the widely accepted story. That's all I can say about it. But it IS the commonly held belief that this, or something close to it, did happen. And I never mentioned Wikipedia as a source. I know how inaccurate it can sometimes be. And as I said previously, Brittannica didn't even mention the incident, so bringing it up as I did did not help my case at all.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Sep, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't want to add any heat to this exchange, but I do want to address an earlier statement (note, doing this from the p.o.v. of someone with a background in epistimology, not history)
Jeff, you earlier on stated that there is not a single english denial of this incident. It seemed from your statement that you felt this was evidence for the event. I think this is a problematic view since at least one reason for not issuing a denial of something is not knowing it has been claimed. If the story wasn't being circulated in the 40 years after the battle (either because it didn't happen, or because of te "written by the victors" elelement) then no one would think to issue a denial, just as they wouldn't deny that they had been assisted by chinese merecnaries (example chosen not to be sarcastic but because writer is not very informed about the battle in question, but is reasonably confident that chinese mercenaries didn't take part)
On a more tongue in cheeck note, Christina Hendricks has never issued a denial of the night of passion she and I spent together in 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Sep, 2010 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | I really don't want to add any heat to this exchange, but I do want to address an earlier statement (note, doing this from the p.o.v. of someone with a background in epistimology, not history)
Jeff, you earlier on stated that there is not a single english denial of this incident. It seemed from your statement that you felt this was evidence for the event. I think this is a problematic view since at least one reason for not issuing a denial of something is not knowing it has been claimed. If the story wasn't being circulated in the 40 years after the battle (either because it didn't happen, or because of te "written by the victors" elelement) then no one would think to issue a denial, just as they wouldn't deny that they had been assisted by chinese merecnaries (example chosen not to be sarcastic but because writer is not very informed about the battle in question, but is reasonably confident that chinese mercenaries didn't take part)
On a more tongue in cheeck note, Christina Hendricks has never issued a denial of the night of passion she and I spent together in 2003 |
Yet another misunderstanding, I'm afraid. The apparent fact that there is no "DID NOT!" exclamation from the English is, as you say, not a very good reason to claim that something did or didn't happen. Nor do I take it as PROOF. It is merely one more element that I added to my overall argument that this event did happen in one form or another. It is not my main argument. I maintain, as I have said repeatedly, that I believe this event happened in full view of both armies, and so even the English realized that they would look like fools as well as losers if they claimed it didn't just to lessen the Bruce's stature, ESPECIALLY if it was widely witnessed. That would lessen the English's stature, not the Bruce's. Taken in that context, it seems a perfectly logical and acceptable conclusion, albeit theoretical. If no one had seen it, and De Bohun was found later dead in the bushes, than any claim by the Scots that the Bruce did him in as reported would, I freely admit, be very suspect, and even I wouldn't try to defend it. That's not the case. This event is pretty much accepted the world over as settled history- you can find it all over the place if you look. Can I ABSOLUTELY PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it happened? No. I've said that over and over, and frankly, I'm sick of saying it. It seems to be the OTHER side that uses absolutes regarding this. But I think the law of averages is on my side. There is nothing impossible or superhuman about this event. Could I do it? Heck no. Not by a mile. I don't think hardly anyone else on these boards could either. But that doesn't mean the Bruce couldn't. He was an experienced commander, a skilled warrior and horseman, very handy with his axe (He was carrying it when this supposedly happened, it was a favorite weapon of his), and apparently not easily ruffled. I still fail to see why this is so impossible for some to believe, unless they are just being contrary for it's own sake. That's fine, they have every right to believe what they wish. But it won't change my mind because of that. Not because I'm stubborn (although I can be) but because I really do believe that this event happened in some form, and I still have heard nothing from the other side to dissuade me.
On a lighter note, I do sometimes collect 54mm miniatures of knights from the St. Petersburg collection (beautiful but so expensive it's like cutting a pound of flesh out of my-um, never mind). Most of the figures of the Bruce show him on a rearing horse with his axe raised on high. Not much to go on, but it makes one wonder, doesn't it? I say this as tongue-in-cheek as well, but I'm running low on ammo.
Tsk, tsk. Kissing and telling. Shame on you.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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