Clive Owens Excalibur

yikes... hey what about that sword that guy had in that movie?

cccc

Not me either... a worker at Universal Studios... I suspect a female from the size

... I stand almost a foot taller than my lady.... she is 5'6"

Is that a statement of certitude from the book or just a supposition expounded upon by the book that lost something in the translation to your summary?

The simple fact of the matter is that the reality of who Arthur was has not been identified as yet. The "End of the Roman Empire Celt and/or Roman" theory is merely the most recently popular.

It is also highly doubtful that Arthur had heavy horse and the stirrup that makes them possible for 2 reasons:
1) Where did that technology go in between the 500s and 1066? Military technology, almost without exception, improved over this period.
2) La Morte d'Arthur, in the original French, makes little mention of mounted combat and none, whatsoever, that included the cavalry lance (though the infantry lance was mentioned a few times).


On the other hand, assuming The Fighting Men is correct, and the Gauls employed the cavalry lance in the 500s, and looking at the originals of the Charlemagne legends...
What Did happen to the stirrup between the 500s and 1066? Why did William not have it?

Then again, the simple answer is that The Fighting Men is wrong and the Charlemagne legends are just that, legends, written in a time when a particular form of combat was the norm.
Occam's Razor and all that.
Especially considering as I am having trouble finding other sources saying that the Romans ever employed lancers. Cavalry Archers, yes. As well as extensive writings into their distrust of cavalry as an effective fighting force. But nothing on them using lancers. But that could just be my weak Google-Fu...

I had no intentions of this becoming any kind of disagreement. I can site several books as to the 1066 introduction of stirrups if that will help. However if there is any factual evidence from a reputed site stating the contrary, I would very much like to see it. If I am wrong, better to be corrected now than in the future.

Disagreements and arguments can be quite fun. Best way I have found for learning (the second best being teaching).

In any case, I'd like to know what books those are so I can go look them up.
I have read quite a few books and articles on the Norman Invasion of 1066 and every single one of them agrees that the images presented on the Bayeux Tapestry are all backed up by archeological evidence found on the site and that neither side had stirrups, thus the inability of the Norman cavalry to just ride down the English wall.


@fallen, I get very little information from the internet on ancient history. I mostly use it to look up names and dates that I can't call to mind readily. Occasionally, I use it to look up a book I either have already and can't find because I can't remember what it's called or to find a book that I'm looking for. My efforts to learn something about Chinese history have proven my inability to use the internet for any meaningful research.
I am unfamiliar with The Fighting Men and I believe this is even the first time I have ever heard of it. and the names you just threw out there mean nothing to me at this time.

If you want anything resembling a complete listing of where I get my knowledge, feel free to come to my house and set up and maintain a Dewey Decimal system, or something similar in my personal library. You'll get to do it for free, of course. If I could afford to pay you to look after my approx 10,000 books, I'd have already hired somebody.


Yes, for anyone who looks at that number in shock, books are something of a fetish of mine.

Not a new comment directed my way. People want my sources, and I often have a hard time providing them. So, no. No insult. It's a reasonable comment.

I must say that I thought Fighting Men was probably a newer book as it's not cited in anything I've got that I can think of. That's not a good sign for something older. And if it presents the Arthur thing as a certitude, it's probably a good thing to just write off.

I'll look into it. It's something I haven't read, for a change. And even the worst piece of historical fiction -- hell the worst piece of fiction, period -- has something to take away from it.

The book is was copy righted in 1963 in England 1965 in the US. During his time Ewart Oakeshott had best know private collections of medieval weapons in the world. He was one of the best know lecturers on medieval weapons. Not saying all he wrote or said has been proven wrong.

Just to let you know I wouldn't have said anything about the internet if you had of said your google fu is weak.

taran i think i found the book in question. a fighting man printed 1960

www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/treece.html#Alphabetical