| Author |
Message |
Rodolfo Martínez
|
 Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hey Richard, i´m a bit embarrased, i go to the photo gallery section but i can´t find the armours, I can only acces to the article. How sould i do to see the armours?
Thanks.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
  |
 |
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | Hey Richard, i´m a bit embarrased, i go to the photo gallery section but i can´t find the armours, I can only acces to the article. How sould i do to see the armours?
Thanks. |
Rodolfo,
Could your browser be blocking the image as a pop-up? Like I said, you just click on the bottom image (or any of the images for that matter - if you want to check out the others). It opens in another window, so it might be blocked depending on your settings.
Here's a link directly to the specific image I was referring to (hopefully the link will work):
http://www.knightsiege.com/pic6.jpg
I won't say whether or not it's historically accurate; I just thought it interesting because the style of armour matched those in Rodolfo's photo.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The half armours with the morions make me remember the papal Swiss Guards. Those are nice armours with patterns wich i have seen in greenwich armours too. A beautiful armoury.
If you have time, please check this site, i have the images but as wich i eant to show is a very heavy one i would prfer to send you the link instead of changing its size. Hope you enjoy them!
http://www.travbuddy.com/photos_popup.php?pid=20469
P.D.
Thanks for the link Richard.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: |
If you have time, please check this site, i have the images but as wich i eant to show is a very heavy one i would prfer to send you the link instead of changing its size. Hope you enjoy them!
Thanks for the link Richard. |
The link worked in the end? I hope it did!
Thanks for the link you posted.
I was especially intrigued by the hauberk with the three rosettes attached. It made me think of the old debate over whether the chains attached to the sword, dagger, and helm in the 14th century always pointed to the presence of a breastplate beneath the surcoat, or if the chains might be attached directly to the hauberk. The rosettes on the hauberk in Valletta may have functioned as attachments for these sorts of chains. They seem to be in the correct locations for this sort of purpose. If they did, then these chains could be attached directly to the hauberk. The presence of the chains by themselves may not necessarily indicate the presence of a breastplate or a coat-of-plates.
Oakeshott suggested that the chains could be attached to the hauberk. Here's what he said in The Archaeology of Weapons:
| Ewart Oakeshott wrote: |
William Wenemaer (1325) has these chains on the brass in the Byloke Museum at Ghent. This shows very clearly how they were fixed to the sword and dagger by rings running freely around the grips. A point of interest in this figure is that the surcoat has two openings through which the chains pass to their fastening over the breast; it is plain to see that they are fixed to the mail of the hauberk not to a solid breastplate or coat-of-plates; this weakens the theory that where breast chains appear, a solid foundation to secure them is implied. |
Other authors often state that the chains do suggest a solid plate beneath. I think that the hauberk in Valletta helps support Oakeshott's argument against this suggestion. The chains alone may not indicate a plate defense beneath the surcoat.
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I felt interested enough in that particular photo to mention it.
Rodolfo, do you suppose you could post the photo of that hauberk?
Thanks! 
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin F.
|
| Posted: Sat 20 Jan, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those swords that you have shown are definite longswords. Having seen them up close they handles are long enough for two handed use, with one hand over the pommel, but they ain't full two handers. You're very right, they are utterly gorgeous swords, the inscriptions on them are really well done. The blades both have thin oval cross sections, with the lower sword of the two (Italien IIRC) has some very nice small fullers running for about 6 inches of the blade. Both have small ricassos just above the hilt, about 3 inches at most. The lower one also has about half of one of the side rings missing, as can be seen in the lower picture.
Here are some more pics for you that I took whilst I was there:
Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin F.
|
| Posted: Sat 20 Jan, 2007 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
And whilst I have access to a good internet connection, here's a few more pictures...
Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Sat 20 Jan, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
About longswords, there is something wich i´m not sure about them, When you wield a longsword, can you wield it with both hands on the grip leaving the pommel free? Becouse there are some longswords with truly long grips, like type Xviiib and type XX and XXa swords. I,m not sure when someone says than you can use a longsword with two hands, if that person refers tho enough space in the grip for both hands without counting the pommel.
And i think that for a longsword i better a longer grip, like in XX types, becouse, if can wield them with both hands in the grip, and if you put a hand in the pommel you can leave enough space between hands to make a fulcrum effect to deliver a more powerful chop.
Thanks
P.D.
Here is the photo Richard. Finally the link worked. Sorry, i had to resize it but the important part is shown. If you want the entire photo you should browse this link:
http://www.travbuddy.com/photos_popup.php?pid=20469
 Attachment: 117.56 KB
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin F.
|
| Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | About longswords, there is something wich i´m not sure about them, When you wield a longsword, can you wield it with both hands on the grip leaving the pommel free? Becouse there are some longswords with truly long grips, like type Xviiib and type XX and XXa swords. I,m not sure when someone says than you can use a longsword with two hands, if that person refers tho enough space in the grip for both hands without counting the pommel.
And i think that for a longsword i better a longer grip, like in XX types, becouse, if can wield them with both hands in the grip, and if you put a hand in the pommel you can leave enough space between hands to make a fulcrum effect to deliver a more powerful chop.
Thanks |
To the best of my knowledge it varies quite a lot.
I like Guy Windsor's definition...
Arming sword = handle length where the pommel touches your wrist.
Longsword = handle length where the pommel rests anywhere between the wrist and the elbow.
Two hander = handle length where the pommel goes above the elbow.
By this method of distinction, the length of a handle for a longsword can also be very different from one to another. The swords in the Valetta armoury, from what I remember, would probably not reach my elbow and did not appear to too long, although the pommels themselves appear to be very well designed in terms of being comfortable to hold, therefore giving plenty of space for the second hand.
My answer to your question would be that quite frequently one hand would grip part of the pommel when wielding a longsword with two hands, although this would by no means be the rule for all longswords.
Isn't it wonderful that the world is a nice grey rather than black and white? 
Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Colin is absolutely correct. Some longswords were designed to have the pommel gripped and some weren't; many had pommels that graded smoothly into the grip so it wasn't easy to tell where one began and the other ended. So there's no hard-and-fast rule, and the personal preference of the sword's owner clearly played a large part in determining the gripping method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin F.
|
| Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Colin is absolutely correct. |
First time for everything
Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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