Examples of mismatched or anachronistic arms & armor? -- myArmoury.com

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

While we certainly know that some people did wear armor that was out of date, it becomes a bit too easy of a modern crutch to say, "I'll just throw all of these pieces together for my kit and claim I looted some of it." But the problem here is that if you want to portray someone who is a professional, then you have to keep in mind that part of being a professional is looking professional.

Take the modern man's suit. If you were going to a job interview, you want to look like someone who is to be taken seriously. You want to look professional. Now imagine you wear a suit from the 1970's with wide polyester lapels and bell bottoms. Technically, that's only a few decades ago, and I'll bet a person 500 years from now looking back will barely notice the difference between that suit and one from today unless if they really study closely (just as the average person doesn't know the difference between 15th century and 14th century armor), and yet I can promise you that your potential boss will have trouble taking you seriously at first glance.

Now imagine you were a man at arms looking to be hired to fight for fortune and glory... and imagine the equivalent armor to that out of style bell-bottomed suit. If you wanted to be taken seriously, then you wanted to keep up to date as much as possible. So while certainly some people would have worn armor that was out of date, just as today some people wear clothes that are out of fashion, you can bet that the ones who took their jobs seriously also made sure they kept their arms and armor as up to date as they could afford to. Wearing something that is over a century old was not the best way to be hired.

Robert Brandt · Posted: Mon 18 Jul, 2011 8:37 pm Post subject:

I have always found the idea that premodern weapons and armour were "out of date" by some period of years measurable in decades to be a rather dubious. It also seems far more likely to me that evolution, when it is noticable, in medieval arms and armour occured every bit as much for stylistic reasons as technological reasons. I believe this for several reasons. One, even in our much faster evolving period of technological advancement, weapons technology often does not change in its basic forms. Two, I doubt that people were any less inclined to show off their individuality in the past than they are today. This would likely lead to odd or retro styled weapons even if they were not being handed down. And third, after thousands of hours of combat practice with weapons ranging from swords and shields, spears, and bows up through modern firearms, I am firmly convinced that the better weapon depends more on the application than on any but the most extreme general superiority of technology.

The counter position that weapons (medieval swords in particular) can be precisely dated by minor varieance in shape or fittings, must be based on a miniscule number of examples. I am by no means an expert in the dating of medieval weapons, but I believe that the possible sample size of items recovered with indisputable provenience is necessarily problematic.

This is not to suggest that no generalizations can be made about weapons or armour. Certainly they can. A type XII blade probably doesn't fit a nobleman's fifteenth century plate kit for example. But to suggest that he didn't have one hanging by the door to wear when he went into town would be going beyond the available evidence IMHO. And I can easily imagine him grabbing that "archaic" cut-oriented sword and just a breastplate to go off and deal with a would be poacher or livestock thief.

William P · Posted: Tue 19 Jul, 2011 2:43 am Post subject:

Tyler Collins · Posted: Tue 19 Jul, 2011 12:18 pm Post subject:

Chad Arnow · myArmoury Team

Chad Arnow · myArmoury Team

There is also the case of the Knights of St. John, a military order that occupied the island of Rhodes in the 14th-16th centuries until the Ottoman Turks took over the island. The knights left behind a treasure trove of armour which was discovered in the mid 19th century.

It consisted of armour dated from the 1430s up through circa 1515 (they were driven from the island around1522). That's quite a timespan in armour terms. Some of this armour shows working-life repairs. It's not known how much of the early 15th century armour was still in use during the siege of 1522 nearly a hundred years later, but the old armour wasn't thrown out or scrapped for its metal.

Rhodes is far closer to modern-day Turkey than to Greece and was kind of far from the armourers of Italy and Germany. It's possible (and indeed likely) that they continued to use at least some old armour as it was still serviceable and available.

But these weren't necessarily rich knights trying to impress their peers with the latest and greatest in armour fashion.