How common were Boss on kite shields? i mean, being a transitional type, id guess there was a point where having a grip like a heater made having a boss pointless, but im no expert.
Middle ages thread?
on that note what was the combo of mail buckler and sword ever prevalent
Can some one teach me or link me to different knight armor syles/designs by country and timeframe? I keep googling and just find fantasy stuff. I know sallet helms were german
also I use to have a sit with templets to cut out to try to make your own armour. All historically accurate stuff
:* not to be a weebo..but I want to make this armor because it looks cool
There's some diagrams and basic info on stuff here. These dudes made (make?) plate armor using historical designs and stuff.
Mail was common everywhere. Perfectly adequate protection, people seem to over-exaggerate it's weaknesses but mail worked perfectly in typical combat as a strong strike with all of your force was needed to cut through it. The English Longbow was what fucked over mail, to which plate was developed/popularized in response. In case you were wondering, mail often had layers of cloth over and under it and occasionally had plates of steel in certain areas but it wasn't all too common. Plate is practically invincible, in plate, you were perfectly mobile and agile, a bit cumbersome, vision was reduced, and you were a bit heavy, but you were still fairly mobile, you could easily get up from a horse if you fell. Plate often had layers of coat or mail in between so if an arrow or lance or anything punctured, you'd still be safe, and during the Hundred Years war when plate became common and was rising, this is what happened, English archers got fucked when arrows would pierce the plate, but do no damage, be blunted, and stay in their armor. Generally, plate made you one strong, touch opponent, but of course it was expensive as fuck, limited your vision and hearing, and you needed assistance getting suited. Besides that, the only real way of defeating an armoured knight if you were say a common peasant or didn't have the skill/equipment to properly deal with one was to gang up on him, knock him from his horse, and slit his throat or sell him for ransom, seldom did you really kill him though. Other than that you could half-sword or use a blunt weapon against them. Other than those two armors you have scale, lamellar, coat of plates, and other types like that but they weren't the most common. Lamellar was a good bridge between plate and mail but you'd fall prey to arrows as with most other armors. The coat of plates could protect you however, as well as from lances but it only covered the chest. In terms of countries, they were universal, people traded and mingled,
>inner thighs and crotch are unprotected
It always bothers me when fantasy games or books do this. Just hang some tassets in front. Boom. Now you don't have to worry about getting stabbed in the dick.
(continued) blacksmith techniques were spread, so armor really wasn't always native to one area, except for things that were staples of said area, you wouldn't find Chinese or Japanese armor in a European market or trading area. Wikipedia is a decent source for images and names.
Highly recommend that vid by the way
>The English Longbow was what fucked over mail, to which plate was developed/popularized in response.
Developments in metallurgy lead to plate being cheaper to make while offering superior protection to mail. It had nothing to do with the English longbow. If it did cultures that didn't fight the English wouldn't have switched.
Stop spreading Britaboo bullshit. The English longbow is to bows as the katana is to swords; decent but massively overrated by people who treat national hype as truth.
There was a website tgat had like 100s of templats. Pretty much cut out sheets. I had it before when I use to forge(make my own ingots from scape)...might of been geocitiea or sum things
From 25 years experience as a historical reenactor and sword fighter I can say that Kite shields were in effect a very large heater. aside from size, the only real difference was the way in which it was strapped on. A heater shield had a single armband and single handhold, so as to hold it crossways. A Kite had a square set of straps just off center for the forearm and 2 handholds; one to the right of the forearm straps and one straight up from them, so that it could be held in 2 different ways. As such a boss would have been useless. Having done the research myself, I am unaware of many (if ANY) heater shields (that remain in existence) that had a boss mounted on them. Also, I love medieval threads...
They're shown with bosses in period artwork at least.
Contrary to popular belief, plate armor was very flexible. Tassets especially were only attached to the faulds(part that cover the abdomen) so they would hang there providing good defense but maintaining mobility.
What develops in metallurgy? If something didn't make an already cheap to produce armor inadequate, what would? Why does plate need to be made for a higher cost when mail works perfectly fine. Sure plate existed prior no doubt, but it hadn't much use until the Hundred Years war when plate was needed. It's stupid to assume that I said the English longbow was all that great, regardless of how good the bow was in comparison other bows, what matters is that it pierced mail effectively, and the French ate shit with that. The Longbow and bows in general were common and spread about too, the English longbow, regular longbows, and lances were all used enough so plate could assist in defending against those, but plate first picked up when the English longbow came around.
>I know sallet helms were german
The Italians made a huge number of sallets for export to all corners of Europe...
As for a quick and rough history of full armour in Western Europe...
11th century: mail hauberk (elbow&knee length) and a conical helmet with a nasal bar. You can tell that most of this century is in the Viking age. There might be some occasional mail chausses seen.
12th century: the mail coverage gradually grows to cover basically everything. Full length sleeves with mufflers for the hands, aventail for the neck, coif for the head, chausses or hoses for the legs with a bit of cover for the foot as well. Kettle hats appear. The conical helmet stays around, but usually without the nasal bar. Towards the middle of the century it starts turning round, and later on the top flattens out. At that point they also start gaining facial plates at times.
13th century: the flat-top helmets add a neck-guard , which pretty quickly grows sideways until it joins with the faceplate. Say hello to the great helm! The conical helmet, sans nasal, does remain though, evolving into a small, light, and only somewhat pointy (at times not at all?) thing called cerveliere or bascinet. This could be worn on top of the mail coif, or it could be combined with mail coif and great helm.
The all-encompassing mail coat start being reinforced with additional defences. Hardened leather breastplates or metal plates riveted to the inside of the surcoat may have been a pretty early thing. in the latter half of the century disc shaped plates to protect the elbow are introduced, but rare. Knee plates likewise turn up around the middle of the century. Shin guards turn up in the last quarter of the century, also rare at first. At the end of the century we start seeing gauntlets.
14th century: now things get going. The use of extra limb protection, hardened leather and such, grows quickly, before full articulated metal plate variants take over. For the legs the full plate option displaces the mail too, for the arms it's a bit more mixed. The steel plates added to the surcoat now grows into the coat-of-plates, a garment of fabric or occasionally leather with a large number of steel plates attached on the inside. Full sized metal breastplates also appear and start spreading quickly, both worn on top of the hauberk. Around IIRC the mid century we reach a point of a short-sleeved mail hauberk, full plate arms and legs, and a coat of plates or breatsplate, the whole thing being called a transitional harness, as it's the transitional form between mail and full plate.
For the head the great helm gets a bit big for fighting, eventually growing into a tournament piece, while the bascinet starts getting various visors.
How would jousting armor work in say a real cavery battle. I know alot of the parta alwere made fixes and riged for front only lance impact. But its alot more beefed up
15th century: around the year 1400 people decided that the full mail hauberk underneath transitional plate was just too bloody heavy, and cut away most of it. All that's left is small bits of mail covering the gaps in the plate, called voiders. And with this we get full plate proper.
It's also now that we start getting the emergence of the big regional styles, as through the century the Italians preserve the old shapes more, while the Germans run off on various, often line-based, fashion adventures. The well known Gothic style pops up around the middle of the century. At various points we also see English and Flemish styles of armour, though telling everythign apart may take some work. Other regions probably didn't have the armour manufacturing to really define their own styles, though you could probably track a few trends if you really wanted.
The coat of plates, originally a rather shapeless thing, gets more tailored, and go for more and smaller plates, turning it into the brigandine.
16th century: full plate sticks around, though the voiders generally don't. While there has always been a degree of difference in how thick breastplates and such were, this starts growing rapidly at this point, as some stick to lighter stuff, and others want protection against the ever increasing power of firearms. Somewhere in the second half of the century protection below the knee starts getting rare.
17th century: armour remains in use for quite a while here. However, towards the middle or so of the century the bullet-proofing of breastplate and helmet have given us armour as heavy as a full transitional harness. People stop bothering, and the use of armour goes into a pretty quick decline. Still, we see things like bullet-proof breastplates, capable of stopping a musket shot at close range, in the latter parts of the century. These are small, single-piece affairs which wouldn't have been worn with any other metal armour at all, only buffed leather clothes.
All this said, things were often far mroe complex "out in reality". Here's a few mail shirts form the early 16th century for example.
Pz go on with regional styles...pictures plz
Read this article.
TL;DR: Producing mail takes a long time, is time consuming and expensive. Technological advances, mainly the water-powered trip-hammer and blast furnace made large-scale production of plate armour easier and cheaper.
>in lookung for specific design styles. Like an art history study
For full plate at least, the fashion there often followed the fashion in civilian clothes pretty well, and at times it was the civilian fashion that followed the plate... So if you see a breastplate and think it looks a lot like the doublet a nobleman would wear in a specific decade, then the breastplate was probably made in that decade too.
Throughout the middle ages we see larger and larger furnaces used to smelt iron. There's simple economic incentive driving this, a larger furnace has less heat losses, and thus requires less fuel. A side effect is that it gives you larger lumps of iron in the end, which around the start of the 14th century reached the point where you could make a breastplate out of a single bloom, making it significantly easier (and cheaper) to make such things. An overall greater iron production also meant less reliance on re-using small scraps, something mail is exceptionally good at.
So without giving any thought to the hundred years war (with Germany and Italy being the big armour-makers...) we see a good reason for plate armour to turn up when it did in the metallurgy, and that in turn is driven by simple search of profit.
If we want to look at weapons, then we also have ever-better crossbows doing their best to poke holes in mail to help drive the development. This too seems to fit better than locking our mind son the hundred years war, as people start putting stuff on top of the mail to help out as early as the 13th century.
Also, if we look at the latter chapter sin "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" we notice that the energy needed to defeat mail makes it difficult, but not impossible, for bow and arrow. It's with the better crossbows that penetration becomes easy, and thus I'd say that's where people would really start looking for improvements in the armour.
15th century? The thicker plates of a good suit would probably laugh off most crossbows (a wall crossbow might be another matter), especially at a bit of range, while a good hit against some of the thinner ones would get bloody.
Italy, as said, often stayed with relatively rounded shapes and smooth surfaces. Though they had a large export business going, and happily made whatever the hell the customers asked for.
In Germany we see the angular kastenbrust style first, followed by the gothic style.
England... Oi, Capwell, publish! (And if I have to show up at some publisher with a chainsaw to help make that happen...) By and alrge I'd say that both English and Flemish look (to my somewhat untrained eyes) like variations on the German stuff. The "Earl of Warwick armour" is an example of the English style.
Ca 1500 we revert back to a more pan-European style. The creation of the Greenwhich workshops in England though result in a second wave of English style, which can probably be split into two main groups. The more continental one makes heavy use of bluing/browning/blackening together with gilding, to make stuff like the armour for Richard Clifford. The other type is characterised by a very barrel-shaped cuirass, like in this pic, and IIRC corresponds quite well in time with the latter, heavier, period of Henry VIII
A quick note on metallurgy. Hardened armour mostly emerged in the early 15th century with some Italian makers. The knowledge then spread both amongst Italian manufacturing centres, and to the big German ones.
Then in the early 16th century the Italians quite abruptly stopped doing it. At the same time, gilded armour became very fashionable. At the time fire gilding was the method for such, you make a gold and mercury paste, smear it on, and heat things so the mercury evaporates. That heating will tend to kill the hardening, and trying to harden afterwards ruins the gilding. Pretty quickly this also resulted in them abandoning medium carbon steel for low carbon steel and plain iron, compensating with increased thickness instead. This adds to the weight, but as the protection scales faster than linear with the thickness it isn't quite as horrible as one might think.
In Germany though some makers managed to combine the fire gilding heating with the tempering into a single stage (there was often a very close co-operation between armourers and goldsmiths here), and sometimes this also served to heat-blue the parts which weren't gilded. Thus hardening, and the use of medium carbon steel stuck around longer, though it faded away throughout the 16th century.
By the 17th century most armour pretty much everywhere in Europe is iron.
Im interested in more picture of this helm.
1445 - 1450 Churburg (Italy) CH 19, armour of Ulrich IX von Matsch, Graf von Kirchberg...doesnt give me much
This is a bascinet with no vizor and an aventail.
Here's a modern recreation, (previous one was too). This time with a vizor and a neck guard plate.
If you were a well equipped longbowman sure, they had a buckler or small shield and mail if they got attacked.
I was quoting the site where that pic came from.
Maybe this pic illustrates better the point. There's a strap that keeps the piece in place, but it is not permanently fixed on the armor.
The whole thing looks very impractical, It's just that that stood out to me the most. I see that in just about every fantasy armor.
Anyway, here's my attempt at fixing it with my mad photoshop skillz
It's not necessarily that I'm trying to say that plate was only developed in response to the Hundred Years War, I know German and Italian plates existed, that's where the French discovered it's effectiveness, I'm saying that one of the major transitions happened during the Hundred Years war when it served it's purpose and became a bit more widespread. I'd definitely say metallurgy effected the efficiency, but basically I'm trying to say archery was a big motive, smithing techniques wouldn't alter armor much, otherwise lamellar would be the best as it's protection from slashes is much better than mail and in terms of cost effectiveness vs plate it wins out, but it also lacks in protecting against arrows. Plate armor didn't become widespread or used for one purpose, there were a lot of reasons and my apologies if I failed to mention that in the original posts, but one of the immediate fielding's of plate was to counter the English archers, now plate wouldn't have been able to be used if not for the metallurgy advancements and it wouldn't have seen use if it wasn't more effective or didn't have so many definite bonus.
On a side note, while a breast plate may be easier to shape from the larger chunks of iron, think about how annoying it would be to have to do measurements and fittings for a person, then apply them, then detail the armor for said person, at that point a coat of plates or something of equivalent protection would be much easier and be much more convenient for larger armies, that is, if plate wasn't necessary for defending against something. In terms of time and cost effectiveness I suppose that depends upon the blacksmith and his experience.
I agree about crossbows too, but I simply wanted to cite one instance where it's usage appeared, of course the crossbow made mail inadequate, lots of things did.
>but one of the immediate fielding's of plate was to counter the English archers
I'm not so certain, both because the English, Italians, Germans etc also started using plate right at the same time as the French, and because I suspect the longbow didn't really have that big an impact at the time, much of that may rather be Victorian romanticism.
Sure, the French attempts to just bum rush a defensive position at Crecy and Agincourt didn't exactly work out terribly well, but when the English tried the same at Castillon the result was much the same, and when the longbowmen got caught out in the open at Patay it seems they held off the knights about as well as the pins hold off a bowling ball.
Thus I'd be careful about giving the longbow any more importance than, well, any other weapon really.
>hink about how annoying it would be to have to do measurements and fittings for a person
Only the absolute top end of armour would have been custom made. The vast majority of it was bought off the rack.
>at that point a coat of plates or something of equivalent protection would be much easier
So we need enough metal for all the plates, we need to shape each and every plate, we need to make all the rivet holes, make the rivets, rivet the damn thing, and we need material for the shell... Plate might actually be the cheap option all said and done.
I don't really know. This suit's based on a Dutch painting at least.
jousting armour and war armour were completely different,
armour used for jousting was alot thicker/ heavier and had fixed pieces to fully protect the knight from the blow of a lance
my theory is that since it literally bridged the gap between a round shield and a heater, it became a holdover, not used to hold the shield by, but perhaps as a decoration, or used to deflect or catch blows?
hell i dont even know, ive never used a shield before, ive only experience with a longsword.
ill post some more stuff.
Would only the poorest of poorfags have only an aketon and no mail?
That probably depends quite a bit on when exactly you're asking that question, the cost of these things could vary quite a bit, with a general trend of things getting a lot cheaper as the middle ages progress. Labour intensive things like mail might temporarily have bumped up a bit after the Black Death though. To some degree though this might have been balanced out by the fact that war and the like was often somethign left to those who could afford the gear (or have someone else pay for it).
Mid 12th century and no mail? Well, that guy certainly isn't well off at least. Probably not much of a veteran either, as I'd imagine that if buying a hauberk was out of the question, then he'd probably look for a suitable, mail-clad corpse somewhere.
yeah, thats about the time period i was asking, about 1050-1150.
>want to do costume
>too poor to have a hauberk
i was thinking of just doing a kappa overtop of padded armor though.
Would spears, pikes, halberds, bills, glaives and poleaxes all have been in use in Europe in the 1300's? Also for normal length spears would it be standard to use them one handed with a shield in the other hand?
knights primary weapon was a spear/lance, because that's how they attacked (particularly in the crusades). Knights riding knee to knee with lances smashed the enemy line and the foot soldiers mopped up the remains.
iirc things like halberds and poleaxes would have been a little later, as they are more focused on plate armor, which was just beginning to take shape in the 1300s.
Of course, i could be wrong, KM will know better than I.
Spears where definitely around. The pike might perhaps start showing up at the very end, but it's not a 14th century thing by and large. Glaives, halberds and bills will all be around, but in far earlier forms than the 15th-16th century forms one normally see (the first two are in their infancy here, the bill on the other hand can supposedly trace its origins back to Roman times). The pollaxe doesn't really evolve from the greataxe until ca 1400.
If you can, get your hand son a copy of Waldman's "Hafted Weapons in Medieval and Renaissance Europe". if not, or until then, this might be of some interest: http://www.mediafire.com/view/nzw3hmqlndd/The_Halberd_and_Other_European_Polearms.pdf
Bottom row, second from the left is a halberd of 14th century style. Might be younger though, as many old polearm variants kept being produced and used in parallel with their more modern forms for considerable time periods.
Well you can get a hauberk, coif, mittens and chausses for about 400 dollars with the cheap butted mail. And then you need underarmour, a helmet, robe and weapons. So all a bit expensive for a costume party.
Another 14th century (style) halberd on the far left here.
Hafted weapons..., The Knight and the Blast Furnace, The Art of Combat, Arms and Armor from Iran... Maybe I should start looking into separate insurance for my bookshelf.
hey where are those illustrations from? Is it from a book? Reverse image search only leads to game forums and /tg/ archives. I got one but cant find many others.
If you are going to remove kebab you might as well look good doing it.
I have no idea but I can post more if you like? Any particular era you prefer?
The first three are from Osprey's "Knight Templar 1120-1312". Fourth one (and yours) look like some other Osprey publication.
I do not know if I have anything specific to the last one so I shall just post them all for the other guy, should be some crusades stuff in there.
This scene always makes me want to play MTW2: Crusades.
Hurp a durp.
All out of those so I leave you with a picture of the deadliest threat ever faced by a medieval warrior.
Certainly, their battles are recorded in an astounding number of manuscripts.
The prevalence of this theme in contemporary records suggests the rivalry between knights and snails was far reaching and long lasting, and majorly significant to society.
Or alternately; that getting teenagers to copy and illuminate records results in exactly the kinds of things one would imagine.
More likely it was just monks poking fun at their own enemies in the monastery herb garden.
exactly, even for just a cheap butted hauberk its like 140 bucks.
its for an event that i volunteer at, i always wanted to dress as a Hospitalier but it never pans out.
KM has it down pat. The last one was from "Knight Hospitaller, 1100-1306". these books are really quite nice.
the one posted >>22608410 here is from the Teuton book, as is this one.
Well it wasn't just the longbow, it was the proliferation of powerful crossbows in all the continental armies that was the major push for plate armor and those improvements in metallurgy. The longbow was just the English equivalent.
Yeah. Ur fuked
How 2as fighting in the deasert with full plate practical? I read the crsaders had to bring their own gear, most were poor...what did the standard footsoilder use.
Padded armor was widely used. Thick felt was sturdy enough to stop arrows. Reading about Richard coeur de Lion, I was struck by the stories of Crusader soldiers looking like porcupines after a moslem attack from all the arrows stuck in their gear. I assume maille was widely used, too.
going by images on sculpture from the date, pretty common.
>How 2as fighting in the deasert with full plate practical?
the crusades ended about 100 years before full plate became commonplace.
at the time of the last crusade, you might've had plate knees (poleyns) and a helm.
the rest was mail/maille, and a textile surcoat over it that protected from the sun.
Any crusader with some sort of pocket money would have been armed much like any other soldier at the time, which tends to mean more or less mail depending on which crusade we're looking at. If there was ever a large amount of common people tagging along to kill for the Lord, without having been brought along by some lord, then they might not have had any armour whatsoever. I'd expect "proper" troops to generally have somethign though (if you want to stay dirt cheap for the infantry grunts then perhaps a heavy padded garment and a helmet behind the shield), simply bringing along a horde of rabble means wasting food which could otherwise have kept battle worthy troops in good health.
The Muslims likewise would generally have been wrapped up in a decent amount of mail.
clothing allowance to the typical Hospitalier.
To me, when i think of a knight, i think of a guy in a surcoat with mail and a great helm- the guy in plate armor isnt the first thing that comes to my mind.
they look so much ore badass, i think.
polish winged hussars - the best cavlary in 16/17th century
>how common was the coat of plates like in this pic? was it onbly used in combination with maille, or was it used in place of it?
entirely dependant on date. they first appear somewhere around 1300, over a mail hauberk. they then become more common over the following 50-60 years, so by 1350, it might be seen on a poor footsoldier of guard, with just a mail coif and some gauntlets, or the likes.
early version pic related
What role did polearms play in the battlefield? I know Knights used poleaxes commonly in the 16th century, but what about Bills and Halberds? I imagine there was little room to swing this motherfucker around in massed ranks, so how did people fight with these?
>cleave down at shoulder, beside neck, weapon becomes lodged in shoulder armor
>thrust at neck, weapon becomes lodged in neck armor
>cleave at elbow, arm is gone
>any sort of attack to the groin
>can't see through the fucking helmet
>complex, ornate design provides many opportunities for any arrow or bladed weapon to get caught in the armor
thats' why they also had sword or dagger.
fight with polearms at range, two forces get pressed together in a meat grinder, those who arent fucked up bt the hedge of spikes from the other side end up with pikes or halberds being pushed up and unable to be moved, so you grab your shorter blade and start hacking instead.
>you will never be forced to fight in a 30 year long war for some kings economic and personal benefit masqueraded as religious political freedom in your lord's levy.
hold me /k/
Goddamnit, can they write something legibal?
All the letters are connected, I can't tell if something's a u an n or an m!
i like longswords but since ive not plate i should use sword and board more. I think i dig XII and XIII, with their larger variants.
>dat Saracen bout to get smashed
>Knights riding knee to knee with lances smashed the enemy line and the foot soldiers mopped up the remains.
I mean they could do this if they were trying to get rid of expensive men, armor, and horses. The reason they had cavalry was speed. In most of warfare they were used to go around the enemy force and subvert power to a rear attack, costing manpower in the front lines. This is shown clearly in the early parts of the second punic war as Carthage relied heavily on cavalry and used it to not only flank Roman armies but kill much more routing men. It gives an army no benefit to charge cavalry into a line of fortified men.
hate to be that guy, but that's just what ive read.
was there a rhyme or reason to painting on shields? just heraldrey or symbols of the kingdom?
i see lots of people painting up their round shileds in quarters, and of course kites and heaters from the crusades have crusader crosses
Yes, but after you kill the first men unless you're attacking a fleeing or surprised enemy then you're more then likely to be slashed or stabbed immediately. A frontal assault was almost never needed by cavalry unless some drastic tactic was involved. It looks mighty cool to portray but most likely after the first hit most men are likely to die as they can offer themselves close to no protection via being on a horse. A horse with little to no armor also suggests the knights would use the horse only to get behind the enemy then dismount to fight hand to hand.
>look up knights fighting snails
>this was apparently a recurring theme in the margins of medieval manuscripts
>nobody is still quite sure why medieval monks felt like drawing knights about to bludgeon, chop, or otherwise impale snails
What the fuck, man
When armies smash into each other, you're primarily looking to make the other guy break and run. A very important part of that is momentum, both mentally, but also in the purely physical sense. If we're looking at the times around Karl XII (not exactly knightly times, but the nature of the human mind and the effects of momentum should remain somewhat constant I suspect, so I pick this because I have backing in Peter Englund's book Polatava), if one infantry unit charged another then the fight was in many ways decided by whether they made it into contact or not, if they did then the attackers usually won quite quickly by merit of being the ones in motion. And cavalry obviously have a lot of momentum.
Now if we look at the polish Hussars during the Deluge, their frontal charges against Swedish infantry did work quite well whenever they made it through the musket fire. Their problem wasn't that they got slashed or stabbed after the first hit, the people they had been charging probably ran after the first hit.
For Karl XI's times knee to knee charges were definitely a thing, Per Dahlberg, ("Svenska Slag")
And while I can't find the exact reference right now, I do remember an account about Swedish, probably Carolean, cavalry simply crashing straight through the enemy infantry on the charge, reforming, going right through again, and so on until the infantry decided that they wanted to be somewhere else in a hurry. Knights in full armour, with lances and possibly with a degree of barding probably wouldn't do any worse. So while I can't point to any source at the moment that discusses the frequency and such, the full frontal, tightly packed cavalry charge does seem like it could work quite well for the knights a lot of the time. Just be a bit smarter about it than people were at Agincourt or Castillon...
If the Carthagian cavalry didn't do this, then it's probably more because they functioned as light cavalry rather than hock cavalry.
didnt know this was a thing.
the shit i learn on /k/...
This thread is magical, thanks for all the warrior loadouts, it's fun to see what people of olds carried about.
this is now one of the best pictures I have ever seen. Probably my new desktop background.
XVa, I like bastard sword type, long hilted swords. Gives me room to work two handed and really lever that fucker around fulcrum points.