|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Aug 5, 2011 12:23:09 GMT -5
I love myths and legends, and I think that all my books have been based in one way or another on the quest for the possible truth behind them; and recently, I gained an accidental insight into a legend from the time of the Crusades. The story goes that the characteristic arms of the dukes of Austria (gules, a fess argent) was inspired by an incident during the Third Crusade. The then duke (Leopold, who famously imprisoned King Richard the Lionheart on his return from the Holy Land), disarmed after a particularly bloody encounter with the Saracens, in which his surcoat became covered in gore, and as he removed his belt a white stripe was revealed underneath. According to which version of the story that you read, he then either adopted or was granted by imperial decree a red shield with a white horizontal stripe across the middle in memory of this episode. But what'ss the truth? Well, the arms of Duke Leopold were probably sable, six eaglets displayed or; so how could a white stripe have appeared from under his belt if the field colour of his arms was black? It appears from pictoral sources that heraldic surcoats did not become fashionable until the early fourteenth century; and that in the twelfth century they were mostly plain, and often just white. Then, as I say, I gained an insight into the legend that otherwise I wouldn't have. At a event earlier this year, I appeared in my Templar persona, and the weather wasn't too pleasant to say the least. My surcoat (which is already well broken-in) got really dirty, and when I removed my belt at the end of the day, lo and behold: a clearly defined fess argent!
So I was wondering: what insights into legend or history have you gained through living history that otherwise you wouldn't have?
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on May 14, 2012 9:57:51 GMT -5
This post is about the myth of Agincourt.
One of the issues surounding the battle of Agincourt in 1415 is how the French army was so thoroughly defeated by such a numerically inferior English one. The traditional view is that the French knights and men-at-arms came thundering down the battlefield on horseback and were overcome by the waiting English longbowmen; and this attitude is typified by the Laurence Olivier film of Shakespeare's 'Henry V'. But, of course any half-serious student of the subject knows this to be inaccurate. For a start, the French cavalry played only a very small part in the battle, while the bulk of their men-at-arms were dismounted.
Recently, I caught a documentary online that tackled this subject; and while it was very illuminating in many respects, even this programme perpetuated one myth. Topographical surveys were undertaken of the battlefield which revealed that the English army was positioned in a bottle-neck; and when computer models were run of the action of crowds in such a confined space, it revealed that the oncoming French men-at-arms would have been thrown into disarray by the terrain. This would have made them vulnerable to the English longbowmen, but not in the way one might at first think, because their arrows would not have been as effective against the armour of the period as has previously been asserted. Rather, the programme makers argued that the lightly clad longbowmen would have thrown down their bows and engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the French men-at-arms. This is undoubtedly what did happen in the battle. And while I agree with the programme's conclusions about the dramatic and devastating effects that the lie of the land had upon the French, it was at this point that the programme went on to perpetuate yet another myth; and that is that the knights and men-at-arms of the period were so weighed down by their armour that they just sunk into the mud and couldn't fight. This is where living history comes into it's own again. To gain some insight into the matter, I put on my full fourteenth century armour (which, though it would have been old-fashioned by 1415, would still have been worn by less well-off men-at-arms), while Dad took on the role of an unarmoured longbowmen. For safety we switched to wooden wasters, and then Dad tried to out-manoeuvre me. He found that he could not, and nor could he land a blow on me. Everywhere he ducked and dived, I was there before him with my sword at his throat; and after ten minutes of trying, he was the one who was tiring, not me.
So called experts never seem to be able to understand that medieval knights were professional soldiers. When faced with the possibility of fighting dismounted, they would immediately adapt their gear. First they would remove their spurs, and then probably their sabatons so as not to impede their steps. Some may even have removed their greaves, or even their leg-armour in its entirety. Next, they would raise their visors for better vision and ventilation, or even remove them all-together. I made none of these concessions, and yet I was able to out manoeuvre a lighter opponent. These experts, of course, have rarely had the same experience that us living historians have had.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on May 16, 2012 1:34:27 GMT -5
I'd have to say that I have shied away from discussing this on here for quite a while, and for a few obvious reasons.
There is a common misconception out there on just how difficult it is to use the "privy" while armored. I figured it out with no issues, as have nearly all other persons in my troop for sure. None of us are rocket scientists, so I would think it quite simple really.
Note that I said nearly. I remember the first time my squire, Andrew MacLir, had to go after getting his hauberk. We were at the Dragon's Lair Pizza and Pub in Van Buren and the entire restaurant heard "WHOA, THAT'S COLD!" from down the hall. He figured it out after that.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on May 16, 2012 1:48:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on May 29, 2012 8:18:01 GMT -5
Good one, Sir Didymous!
I am reminded of a re-enactor's joke. It concerns how differently we look, even to each other, in our 21st century attire. It might not translate 100% because there is a visual element to it.
Two medieval re-enactors were in a pub. The one went over to the other, extending his hand:
'Hello mate, how are you? Good to see you again!'
The other looked back blankly.
'We met a few months back at the Tewkesbury Medieval Festival'
The other still looked back at him bewildered. He then had a thought and covered his face with both hands, leaving only his eyes exposed:
'Ah! Now I recognize you mate!'
I have to say I've been in this situation quite a few times and its taken a few of my re-enactor friends to get used to how I look out of my armour!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on May 29, 2012 15:09:29 GMT -5
I work in a restaurant kitchen where I can be seen by all of the guests. I twirl the knives and make the fire jump, and all of those kinds of things that allow me to use my skill with knife fighting to put on a good show. Well about a day or two after my turn as "Sir Glaston Eatinbeef", one of the families that was in attendance came to the restaurant. Not a single person recognized me. The same thing happened with a group of Boy Scouts about a week ago.
It's funny how much we can become other people when in garb. Sunday at one of our meetings I was trying to get my squire's attention using his real name, but it wasn't until I shouted "Andrew!" that he even noticed that I had been talking to him.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Feb 19, 2013 0:07:11 GMT -5
While at the Living History Trade fair a couple of weeks ago, we had the fortune of having our recruitment table set across from a couple of shoemakers from Canada. Now this event was almost completely early American oriented (our troop being the exception). so needless to say we stood out a bit. Didn't have much happening as to recruiting, but we had a fair deal of opportunities to educate, mostly after the general public left and it was just us reenactor types. Well anyway we were given the chance to debunk the myth that great-helms were cumbersome, airless, and vision-inhibiting things that weighed a ton. Our newest friend Robert Land (the fore mentioned shoemaker), who normally specializes in 18th century asked if there was any truth to that myth. We allowed him to try on my 14th century bacinet and top-helm combination with the avintail. It took him a minute to get used to the weight, but he said and I here quote: "This isn't actually all that bad. I mean you could get used to the weight with a little training an the visibility is pretty okay. I can see your upper half fine at sword's length and the rest of you through the ventilation holes. I can breathe pretty well too."
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Feb 21, 2013 3:33:52 GMT -5
Exactly Sir Didymous. I've even worn my armour for long periods. Once for about 9 or 10 hours in blistering heat. Members of the public ask how can knights possibly have fought in all that, but I always say that once you try you find out not only that you can, but you'll also find out why you need to.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Jul 9, 2013 12:20:01 GMT -5
I think this video shows things a bit differently. I mean if armour really inhibited your ability to fight so much, why was it so sought after? It fell out of use on the large scale because it became obsolete. Though it is seeing a resurgence in the modern military in the form of helmets (styled after the German sallet), flack jackets (brigandine), and cod pieces. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFLxrrf5S-4
|
|