Ok, I'm still way new to all this and history has always been one of my weak points (althought its getting better). The thing is I've been thinking of putting together a personna to start building a kit around. Since dates don't hold that much appeal for my I figured on doing it on the armor. The problem is I've looked at various pieces of armour that i like the look of but have no reall idea if they go together. I plan on researching more but thought I'd ask for some input from you knowledgeable types to help speed things along...
either a kettlehat or loberstertail sallet
gorget
plackart and backplate with tassets
fitted greaves
demigauntlets
and probally a gambesion
maybe with a polearm
I know thats not a whole lot to go on but as I said I'm still new to this. Thanks in advance for your time and attention......
------------------
Fear the wrath of a patient man.
personna help
Moderator: Glen K
-
Klangiron Skullthumpa
- Archive Member
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Deville,LA,USA
- Contact:
-
Reinhard
- Archive Member
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia (Ynys Fawr)
This sounds late 15th c. to me! My favourite period!
A great period for SCA, becuase of the move back to foot combat, so we don't look like idiots wearing horse armour and walking everywhere (Hey! It matters to me!)
It also is a great time to base yourself as a warrior, everyone is sticking knives into each other. Lessee, here's some things you may want to look into :
The War of the Roses, England vs England. A particularly bloodthirsty scrabble for the trhone where ransom was rarely given. Soldiers from this conflict often fought on the continent too.
The Burgundian wars. Burgundy (now western France and the low countries) vs nearly everyone in sight, especially the Swiss (Yay!), French, Swabian Germans and even some Lombards (Northern Italians, very hard men).
Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy goes for gold and tries to reestablish the ancient kingdom of Lotharingia in Western France, he almost makes it except for the vicious wars against the Swiss Confederation and France. Poor Chuck ends up in a ditch in 1477, hacked up by a swiss halberd.
I think the Spanish Reconquista is just winding up, I'll check on that though. I do know the Spaniards, France and Italy are all having a pieces of each other in Italy at the time. The Condotierre (Italian merceneraries, with a substantial foreign contingent) are at their height, they were labelled 'bloodless warriors' by Machiavelli but the were in fact masters of manouevre, the Spaniards later defeat France using these mercenary's tactics.
Most of Eastern Europe and Germany are fighting the Turk as usual, from 1453 on the Balkan knights were in the front line against the Turks, and savage battles here were notable because they were *huge*. Whole kingdoms turned up against the Muslim invaders.
Anything you're particulary interested in, I'll see what my stuff here has and give a summary.
Cheers,
Reinhard Hauser von Burgdorf
"Pas d' argent, pas de Suisses"
A great period for SCA, becuase of the move back to foot combat, so we don't look like idiots wearing horse armour and walking everywhere (Hey! It matters to me!)
It also is a great time to base yourself as a warrior, everyone is sticking knives into each other. Lessee, here's some things you may want to look into :
The War of the Roses, England vs England. A particularly bloodthirsty scrabble for the trhone where ransom was rarely given. Soldiers from this conflict often fought on the continent too.
The Burgundian wars. Burgundy (now western France and the low countries) vs nearly everyone in sight, especially the Swiss (Yay!), French, Swabian Germans and even some Lombards (Northern Italians, very hard men).
Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy goes for gold and tries to reestablish the ancient kingdom of Lotharingia in Western France, he almost makes it except for the vicious wars against the Swiss Confederation and France. Poor Chuck ends up in a ditch in 1477, hacked up by a swiss halberd.
I think the Spanish Reconquista is just winding up, I'll check on that though. I do know the Spaniards, France and Italy are all having a pieces of each other in Italy at the time. The Condotierre (Italian merceneraries, with a substantial foreign contingent) are at their height, they were labelled 'bloodless warriors' by Machiavelli but the were in fact masters of manouevre, the Spaniards later defeat France using these mercenary's tactics.
Most of Eastern Europe and Germany are fighting the Turk as usual, from 1453 on the Balkan knights were in the front line against the Turks, and savage battles here were notable because they were *huge*. Whole kingdoms turned up against the Muslim invaders.
Anything you're particulary interested in, I'll see what my stuff here has and give a summary.
Cheers,
Reinhard Hauser von Burgdorf
"Pas d' argent, pas de Suisses"
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi All,
Actually Rienhardt, the mid 15th century saw a swing back to the importance of the mounted man at arms, and a resurgance of same everywhere in Western and Southern Europe - except for that backwater England. It was advances in metalurgy and armour design (including advances in horse armour) that allowed this possibility.
The Mounted man at arms was no longer the absolute king of the battlefield, but he was an effective weapon system that wasn't obsoleted until the massing together of firearms on the battlefield in the last decade of the Italian wars (Pavia 1525 is a good general point). Prior to this, handgonners tended to be used as skirmishers (jusat like their crossbowmen predecessors), rather than en-masse like bowmen.
The rise of a professional and reasonably well-equipped infantry relegated the mounted man at arms to the role of a useful, important (and necessary) auxiliary in the armies of Western Europe. Think of them being like tanks in the current decade - they can be dealt with by some hand held infantry weapons, and no longer dominate the battlefield, but any6 self-respecting army has to have them, if for no other reason than if you do not, they can be a decisive factor against you, and you need the same kind of weapons system as being the most effective counter to them. Tanks on the battlefield, against an army of similar technology and size have to be carefully employed, so as not to be slaughtered. That said, they can play a decisive role. In Western Europe of 1450 - 1525, the situation was almost identical for the mounted 'knight'.
The only exceptions to this rule is England, where a combination of their traditional national tactical system (which eventually lost them the 100 years war, let us not forget) of the bowman and the man at arms employed as a heavy infantryman, and a lack of suitable horseflesh for the task (not to mention a lack of money for the requisite modern effective horse armour).
The second exception is Switzerland, a country too poor and rugged to supply the men at arms for the task. It is interesting to note that they could not win a decisive victory (in terms of destroying a large part of an army) against the well equipped Burgundian army, until their alliance with Rene, Duke of Lorraine brought them a large contigent of mounted men at arms that allowed them to pursue and destroy in detail the Burgundian army. This incidentaly is a classic example of Mounted men at arms perfoming the vital function of a 'can't live without' auxiliary force as I described above.
I would recommend to you "Chivalry & Warfare" by Malcom Vale, snd "Rennaisance Warfare" by Bertram Hall as being the best expounders of the theory of a resurgance of the importance of the mounted man-at-arms during the 15th century. Both are very readable, but are very well researched, annotated and scholarly works. Hall points out the very moment in history when they go back to being a pretty encumberance rather than a useful auxiliary.
So, the history of the mounted man at arms in Western Europe is "dominace - 1066 - 1320", followed by "what the hell are these clouds of sharp pointy things coming at me - Aqhhhhh! 1320 - 1420", To "Take that you blasted bowmen (thundering of artillery at the ideal target of massed blocks of infantry), with arrows ineffectively plinking off of improved armour" 1420 - 1450. to "The formation (of infantry) is shaken - Hahay! Ride them Down!!! 1450 - 1520-ish. to finally "Wait a moment, what are all those handgonners doing in a block? Aghhh!!!" 1525.
Mid 15th century armour is idealy suited for mounted combat. It was intended for it, unless you go looking for suits with tonlets down to the knees - those suits are intended for foot combat, but usually in the lists. As an example, the recently posted suit of the Chamberlain of Burgundy.
------------------
Bob R.
Actually Rienhardt, the mid 15th century saw a swing back to the importance of the mounted man at arms, and a resurgance of same everywhere in Western and Southern Europe - except for that backwater England. It was advances in metalurgy and armour design (including advances in horse armour) that allowed this possibility.
The Mounted man at arms was no longer the absolute king of the battlefield, but he was an effective weapon system that wasn't obsoleted until the massing together of firearms on the battlefield in the last decade of the Italian wars (Pavia 1525 is a good general point). Prior to this, handgonners tended to be used as skirmishers (jusat like their crossbowmen predecessors), rather than en-masse like bowmen.
The rise of a professional and reasonably well-equipped infantry relegated the mounted man at arms to the role of a useful, important (and necessary) auxiliary in the armies of Western Europe. Think of them being like tanks in the current decade - they can be dealt with by some hand held infantry weapons, and no longer dominate the battlefield, but any6 self-respecting army has to have them, if for no other reason than if you do not, they can be a decisive factor against you, and you need the same kind of weapons system as being the most effective counter to them. Tanks on the battlefield, against an army of similar technology and size have to be carefully employed, so as not to be slaughtered. That said, they can play a decisive role. In Western Europe of 1450 - 1525, the situation was almost identical for the mounted 'knight'.
The only exceptions to this rule is England, where a combination of their traditional national tactical system (which eventually lost them the 100 years war, let us not forget) of the bowman and the man at arms employed as a heavy infantryman, and a lack of suitable horseflesh for the task (not to mention a lack of money for the requisite modern effective horse armour).
The second exception is Switzerland, a country too poor and rugged to supply the men at arms for the task. It is interesting to note that they could not win a decisive victory (in terms of destroying a large part of an army) against the well equipped Burgundian army, until their alliance with Rene, Duke of Lorraine brought them a large contigent of mounted men at arms that allowed them to pursue and destroy in detail the Burgundian army. This incidentaly is a classic example of Mounted men at arms perfoming the vital function of a 'can't live without' auxiliary force as I described above.
I would recommend to you "Chivalry & Warfare" by Malcom Vale, snd "Rennaisance Warfare" by Bertram Hall as being the best expounders of the theory of a resurgance of the importance of the mounted man-at-arms during the 15th century. Both are very readable, but are very well researched, annotated and scholarly works. Hall points out the very moment in history when they go back to being a pretty encumberance rather than a useful auxiliary.
So, the history of the mounted man at arms in Western Europe is "dominace - 1066 - 1320", followed by "what the hell are these clouds of sharp pointy things coming at me - Aqhhhhh! 1320 - 1420", To "Take that you blasted bowmen (thundering of artillery at the ideal target of massed blocks of infantry), with arrows ineffectively plinking off of improved armour" 1420 - 1450. to "The formation (of infantry) is shaken - Hahay! Ride them Down!!! 1450 - 1520-ish. to finally "Wait a moment, what are all those handgonners doing in a block? Aghhh!!!" 1525.
Mid 15th century armour is idealy suited for mounted combat. It was intended for it, unless you go looking for suits with tonlets down to the knees - those suits are intended for foot combat, but usually in the lists. As an example, the recently posted suit of the Chamberlain of Burgundy.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Reinhard
- Archive Member
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia (Ynys Fawr)
You're right Bob, but I'm not saying that the mounted man-at-arms became obsolete, but that the heavily armoured foot started their renaissance about then. It's a good time to play heavy foot, because they were becoming *institutionalised* and not just a tactic to be employed on an individual basis.
Of course, the hackneyed old 'poor-peasants-armed-only-with-a-spear-and-wearing-rags-that-are-cut-down-in-droves-by-the-nobles'is pretty much gone now, the soldiers of the day may have had the primacy of the heavy cavalry uppermost in their minds, but they were'nt idiots, and they prefered good staunch infantry recruited from the middle class and the country yeomen, just below the knightly classes. (The battles at Coutrai spring to mind)
The thrust of my comments though, were saying that the rise of foot-knights had become a tactic in some nations to the exclusion of horse combat, and this is a particularly good SCA persona, unless you wish to buy a horse. (And it probably wouldn't be allowed at events anyway.)
Of course, the hackneyed old 'poor-peasants-armed-only-with-a-spear-and-wearing-rags-that-are-cut-down-in-droves-by-the-nobles'is pretty much gone now, the soldiers of the day may have had the primacy of the heavy cavalry uppermost in their minds, but they were'nt idiots, and they prefered good staunch infantry recruited from the middle class and the country yeomen, just below the knightly classes. (The battles at Coutrai spring to mind)
The thrust of my comments though, were saying that the rise of foot-knights had become a tactic in some nations to the exclusion of horse combat, and this is a particularly good SCA persona, unless you wish to buy a horse. (And it probably wouldn't be allowed at events anyway.)