Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:06 pm
The crossbow was also considered unchivarous also. EDIT however the french however did use crossbowmen in battles such as agincourt.
The source for all your LEGO Castle needs!
http://www.classic-castle.com/forum/
Interesting that the weapon considered to be unchivalrous, the crossbow, was the first shoulder-based missile weapon - essentially the prelude to the gun, which marked the eventual end of chivalry.Patron of the lego wrote:The crossbow was also considered unchivarous also. EDIT however the french however did use crossbowmen in battles such as agincourt.
Never in history, that I am aware of. Again, it depends on the exact era, but generally speaking in Western Europe -- the majority of any armed force was either cavalry (skirmishing parties or raiding parties, which were often one in the same) or, more often, close infantry.I'm actually pretty sure that the majority of a army was made of archers. Since bows are arrows were pretty cheap weapons in the MA.
Concerning knights specifically? This is generally accurate, although the 'house symbol' wasn't always that particular knight's own family. A household knight would wear the livery of his lord, not his own. Likewise, in the early medieval period when the rules of heraldry were non-existant and just developing, knights would wear whatever suited their fancy, and not necessarily any symbol of meaning.That is, they would wear their house symbol rather than a unified faction symbol (like, say, a falcon, or a lion)?
The belief that knights held projectile weapons 'dishonourable' is a weird half-truth. In fact, many knights were competant bow- or crossbowman, using those weapons when hunting. The whole thing surrounding projectiles and knights is more a matter of culture and social concerns than honour. If knights held these weapons dishonourable, they would have disdained even fighting near such troops on their -own- side. Rather, they hated these weapons because of the social rammifications of their use; they hurt 'chivalric' warfare and damaged a knight's high status in society and in the military.The crossbow was also considered unchivarous also. EDIT however the french however did use crossbowmen in battles such as agincourt.
And the hand-gonne wasn't too far behind, showing up in the 13th century, when crossbows had only recently reached their higher levels of sophistication (windlass, etc).the crossbow, was the first shoulder based missile weapon - essentially the prelude to the gun, which marked the eventual end of chivalry.
But, wasn't there a point in time where you could have, say, ten knights, all working for the same lord, but all with different symbols?Damien wrote:Concerning knights specifically? This is generally accurate, although the 'house symbol' wasn't always that particular knight's own family. A household knight would wear the livery of his lord, not his own. Likewise, in the early medieval period when the rules of heraldry were non-existant and just developing, knights would wear whatever suited their fancy, and not necessarily any symbol of meaning.That is, they would wear their house symbol rather than a unified faction symbol (like, say, a falcon, or a lion)?
Probably the single most famous battle fought between the years 500 and 1500 was the battle of Agincourt where king Henry the V of England's army marching to Calais from the south of France consisted of approximately 6500 archers and about 1500 men-at-arms. Especially during the 100-years war period (1337-1438) English armies were known to have a vast majority of archers over other troops, we're talking 80% archers, 20% other, or even more.Damien wrote:Never in history, that I am aware of. Again, it depends on the exact era, but generally speaking in Western Europe -- the majority of any armed force was either cavalry (skirmishing parties or raiding parties, which were often one in the same) or, more often, close infantry.I'm actually pretty sure that the majority of a army was made of archers. Since bows are arrows were pretty cheap weapons in the MA.
Only the English during the late medieval period made extensive use of archers. And even then they were never the majority of the army. Never more than half, and rarely that.
Though hand-gonnes did exist as early as th 13th century, they were never used nearly as much as the crossbow until the late 15th century in the Hussite and Bohemian wars. Those have the earliest recorded battles with extensive use of handheld gunpowder weapons.Damien wrote:And the hand-gonne wasn't too far behind, showing up in the 13th century, when crossbows had only recently reached their higher levels of sophistication (windlass, etc).
Absolutely. Feudal levies would technically be under their lord while wearing their own heraldry. But household troops would wear their lord's heraldry, or a variation thereof, since they would not have their own. It really depends on the time period and area.But, wasn't there a point in time where you could have, say, ten knights, all working for the same lord, but all with different symbols?
Well firstly, those are absolutely drastically incorrect numbers. An army of that size would be very hard to aquire in the medieval era. Historians all seem to agree that we cannot trust the numbers passed down to us. Especially since most medieval people could not really count. Likewise, the numbers are often exaggerated for a particular type of troop.king Henry the V of England's army marching to Calais from the south of France consisted of approximately 6500 archers and about 1500 men-at-arms.
The Almoravids were not Western Europeans. To point a fact, the Byzantines were fond of larger numbers of archers to other troops as well. But they, also, were not Western Europeans.Also during the later half of the Reconquista (722-1492), the Almoravid armies were known to consist mostly if not entirely of archers.
Though hand-gonnes did exist as early as th 13th century, they were never used nearly as much as the crossbow until the late 15th century in the Hussite and Bohemian wars. Those have the earliest recorded battles with extensive use of handheld gunpowder weapons.
Thanks, that's all I needed to know.Damien wrote:Absolutely. Feudal levies would technically be under their lord while wearing their own heraldry. But household troops would wear their lord's heraldry, or a variation thereof, since they would not have their own. It really depends on the time period and area.But, wasn't there a point in time where you could have, say, ten knights, all working for the same lord, but all with different symbols?
I wonder what you base this on, because in a recent re-assessment (2006) of the troops in the battle of Agincourt it was indeed agreed on by all parttaking historians that the numbers previously assumed were incorrect, and they came to the conclusion there were a total of about 8000 troops, approximately 6500 of which were longbowmen. Of course we can speculate on this forever but the simple fact remains, neither of us was there so let's not litter this thread any further with disagreements on numbersDamien wrote:Historical evidence and logistics seems to indicate there could -not- have been such a huge margin of archers at any given time in one area. Just wasn't possible to raise them and get them around since they were irregular troops. Modern estimates put the entire English army at only about 6000 troops - with the French having likely about 12-1500.
The Almoravid enhabited the southern half of Spain and Portugal for over 700 years, that's about as west as you can go and still be in Europe.Damien wrote:The Almoravids were not Western Europeans.
Whose assessment, though.because in a recent re-assessment (2006) of the troops in the battle of Agincourt
Fair enough.neither of us was there so let's not litter this thread any further with disagreements on numbers
Absolutely. But they were still no more Western European as the French were Middle-Eastern while inhabiting Syria.True, their roots were in northern Africa, but they considered Iberia as much their homeland as the Spaniards
Yes it is! Unfortunately, it's already gone over my head... ??Damien wrote:
Of course, it's all academic nitpicking, but it's fun to talk about.
Aha so I'm not the only one enjoying this I was just starting to worry we were going off-topic and boring the crap out of everyone lolDamien wrote:Of course, it's all academic nitpicking, but it's fun to talk about.