Go to page Previous  1, 2

Nat Lamb wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
Yeah, Robin Hood annoyed the hell out of me. Not sure why. I loved Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven, and even 13th Warrior. King Arthur is probably the only "historical" movie that annoyed me more.


You mean it wasn't common in the period for enamy comanders to charge each other up a litereal mountain of bodies once each of their armies were totaly destroyed?


You forgot to menthion they usually did so dual-wielding swords and dressed in 16th century parade armour :)
Hi,
in La Chanson de Roland (Oxford, 3385)
we can read :
Escuz fruisez e bronies desmaillees
... obviously if it could be desmaillé it had to be mail ;)
for truth as our colleague P. Gottfried does not think it is entirely false this armor, I have some friends here in Mexico we are also very intrigued by this armor, some of my comrades are historians and others are only history buffs like myself, so far fall into the same conclusion as well as of P. Gottfried mesh barely survives these periods but the leather decays much faster than iron and the fabric even faster so we see no historical broignes yet. Maybe the armor is a misunderstanding but maybe not, I say maybe not because this armor would be a good choice for infants and gentlemen "poor " because having a coat of mail would be like driving a Mercedes today.
Problem is - making such armour would not cost much less than making a suit of mail of appropriate dimensions so that rules out the theory about the "poor knights". Wherever we have remains of mail, it is always in form of rings riveted closed ora mix of solid/riveted rings, never a pile of separate rings. Also, the main reason why such an armour would be unfeasiable has already been voiced - it offers little to no protection against thrusting weapons and arrows. And primary weapon used back then was a thrusting one - spear or a horsemans lance. So it would make very little sense to spend a considerable effort in crafting an armour that is only marginally (if at all) effective against the most often employed weapon.
Luis Armando wrote:
because having a coat of mail would be like driving a Mercedes today.

During the period in question having ANY armour was like driving a Mercedes. There is absolutely no evidence for poorer soldiers using poorer quality armour. The elite had metal armour - mail or scale (no other fanciful construction). The rest made do with a shield and maybe a helmet.

Quote:
so we see no historical broignes yet

The term was never used to refer to a specific type of armour. It means "armour"; nothing more. You need a different term to apply to this fantasy ring armour.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Mon 07 Feb, 2011 5:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
ok then the armor if misinterpreted. knights thank you very much indeed
Werner Stiegler wrote:
Quinn W. wrote:

Do you mean like that thing William Marshall wore in The latest Robin Hood film? If so, it's interesting how inaccuracies are perpetuated.
No, it looked nothing like that. What they came up with was a suit of circular scales overlapping from left to right. It kinda turned out like a wierd fusion of 18th century indian armour and: "this we saw on the Bayreux Tapestry!". I think they used it in a movie about the Crusades made during the 80s though.

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of the false re-creation you were speaking of personally, but the description you provided seemed to match up with that movie prop.
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum