|
Post by demented on Apr 27, 2020 20:10:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by demented on Apr 27, 2020 20:23:10 GMT
Nice weapon though, OP. Would match up real nice with a messer as a sidearm.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Apr 27, 2020 22:25:10 GMT
And I quote, "So if you want to rob a peasant, pinch the skin on his throat and thrust through it, as shown, so that he thinks that you have cut his throat, and this does no harm."
|
|
|
Post by demented on Apr 27, 2020 22:34:24 GMT
And I quote, "So if you want to rob a peasant, pinch the skin on his throat and thrust through it, as shown, so that he thinks that you have cut his throat, and this does no harm." Hopefully the hardcore HEMA guys skip that bit , peasants have guns now of days.
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Apr 27, 2020 23:29:31 GMT
An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)? An interesting question. I'm just stumbling upon this thread, and haven't read the whole thing. Not sure if you've already been answered. But the Crusades are my main area of interest. The First Crusade launched in 1095. Pope Urban II wanted all the Crusaders to depart at about the same time, and cautioned those who assembled early and without much leadership to be patient and wait for the greater lords to be ready. Some people just couldn't wait, and pressed on towards the east in what some people like to call the People's Crusade or the Peasants' Crusade. I don't like this terminology, and prefer to think of it as the first wave of the First Crusade. It was largely seen as a rabble of poor people. Their discipline was not very good. It had two leaders, Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir. There is some dispute about what kind of person Walter was, and what his name means. Literally, it means Walter "Without Property." Confusion, bad translations, and historical bias have led many to translate it as Walter "the Penniless." More accurately, it probably refers to the name of the land he did own and his family motto. In any case, Walter was indeed a knight. Whether he was an impoverished one or not is open to debate (though, most people going on Crusades had to liquidate much, sometimes most, of their assets just in order to go). However, due to Sir Walter being associated with the undisciplined, generally poor wave of the "Peasants'" or "People's" Crusade, he too is generally seen as a poor knight without land or money. I am sure there were many such nobles and knights throughout Medieval to Early Modern Europe who had fallen on bad times, and had very little money or land. EDIT to say that for the longest time (and perhaps due to Victorian bias), Crusaders in general were seen as younger knights and nobility who were not going to inherit any land from their fathers, so they were the ones to most likely go on Crusade. They might actually get more wealth and possibly land that way. The leading historian of the Crusades in modern times and in the English language is Jonathan Riley-Smith. He says this idea is most likely false, and even says that these Crusade-hungry, younger sons "probably didn't even exist." He maintains that the Crusades were such a popular idea and concept that they appealed to all Europeans, regardless of gender, age, social position, wealth, or any other thing that one could divide people by.
|
|
|
Post by demented on Apr 28, 2020 2:48:28 GMT
An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)? An interesting question. I'm just stumbling upon this thread, and haven't read the whole thing. Not sure if you've already been answered. But the Crusades are my main area of interest. The First Crusade launched in 1095. Pope Urban II wanted all the Crusaders to depart at about the same time, and cautioned those who assembled early and without much leadership to be patient and wait for the greater lords to be ready. Some people just couldn't wait, and pressed on towards the east in what some people like to call the People's Crusade or the Peasants' Crusade. I don't like this terminology, and prefer to think of it as the first wave of the First Crusade. It was largely seen as a rabble of poor people. Their discipline was not very good. It had two leaders, Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir. There is some dispute about what kind of person Walter was, and what his name means. Literally, it means Walter "Without Property." Confusion, bad translations, and historical bias have led many to translate it as Walter "the Penniless." More accurately, it probably refers to the name of the land he did own and his family motto. In any case, Walter was indeed a knight. Whether he was an impoverished one or not is open to debate (though, most people going on Crusades had to liquidate much, sometimes most, of their assets just in order to go). However, due to Sir Walter being associated with the undisciplined, generally poor wave of the "Peasants'" or "People's" Crusade, he too is generally seen as a poor knight without land or money. I am sure there were many such nobles and knights throughout Medieval to Early Modern Europe who had fallen on bad times, and had very little money or land. EDIT to say that for the longest time (and perhaps due to Victorian bias), Crusaders in general were seen as younger knights and nobility who were not going to inherit any land from their fathers, so they were the ones to most likely go on Crusade. They might actually get more wealth and possibly land that way. The leading historian of the Crusades in modern times and in the English language is Jonathan Riley-Smith. He says this idea is most likely false, and even says that these Crusade-hungry, younger sons "probably didn't even exist." He maintains that the Crusades were such a popular idea and concept that they appealed to all Europeans, regardless of gender, age, social position, wealth, or any other thing that one could divide people by. In theory a King or Queen could (and did) knight anybody they wanted to, right?
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Apr 28, 2020 4:53:46 GMT
In theory a King or Queen could (and did) knight anybody they wanted to, right? Yes, there are historical examples. Often, a knighthood could be bestowed upon a commoner who had shown great courage or accomplished great things in battle. In this case, it would be a case of king, noble, or other knight giving the knighthood to a person who was already on their side. There are other cases where it is the opposite--a king, noble, or knight bestows the knighthood upon an enemy. There are some supposed examples of this that took place during the Crusades, but some historians doubt the veracity of these. There are definite recorded examples of this during the Hundred Years War. English or French knights would be captured by enemies. Sometimes, the captor was a commoner. Rather than suffer the disgrace of having been captured by such lowly "nobodies," the captured knight would knight the captor(s). Then, they could at least say they were captured by equals. During a lull in the Hundred Years War, many knights on both the French and English side went on Crusade to Prussia. Former enemies, they were now fighting on the same side for the same cause. They even became friendly. Both English and French returned home once the Crusading season in Prussia was over and the Hundred Years War resumed. During a siege, a French castle was in danger of falling. The siege had been long and costly, and the soon-to-be victorious English army was in an extremely noticeable foul mood, especially the common, "savage" foot soldiers from Wales and the Anglo-held areas of Ireland. The French knights found the idea of surrendering to common troops distasteful, and feared they might be butchered by these commoners before they could nobly knight them or give them some other appeasing gift. Instead, the French knights secretly negotiated their surrender directly with the English knights commanding the army. Fortunately, some of the English knights turned out to be their former comrades-in-arms in Prussia, so they had that common bond that made this surrender easier. The chivalric order of knighthood was common bond enough to make such a deal, but the English knights could well sympathize with their French counterparts over the beneath-them peasants and commoners. One of my favorite instances of a common person being knighted by a king was that of one of my heroes, Saint Joan of Arc. As common as they come from a peasant farming family, Joan was knighted by King Charles VII. There are other examples, but I've babbled enough. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by demented on Apr 28, 2020 8:02:14 GMT
In theory a King or Queen could (and did) knight anybody they wanted to, right? Yes, there are historical examples. Often, a knighthood could be bestowed upon a commoner who had shown great courage or accomplished great things in battle. In this case, it would be a case of king, noble, or other knight giving the knighthood to a person who was already on their side. There are other cases where it is the opposite--a king, noble, or knight bestows the knighthood upon an enemy. There are some supposed examples of this that took place during the Crusades, but some historians doubt the veracity of these. There are definite recorded examples of this during the Hundred Years War. English or French knights would be captured by enemies. Sometimes, the captor was a commoner. Rather than suffer the disgrace of having been captured by such lowly "nobodies," the captured knight would knight the captor(s). Then, they could at least say they were captured by equals. During a lull in the Hundred Years War, many knights on both the French and English side went on Crusade to Prussia. Former enemies, they were now fighting on the same side for the same cause. They even became friendly. Both English and French returned home once the Crusading season in Prussia was over and the Hundred Years War resumed. During a siege, a French castle was in danger of falling. The siege had been long and costly, and the soon-to-be victorious English army was in an extremely noticeable foul mood, especially the common, "savage" foot soldiers from Wales and the Anglo-held areas of Ireland. The French knights found the idea of surrendering to common troops distasteful, and feared they might be butchered by these commoners before they could nobly knight them or give them some other appeasing gift. Instead, the French knights secretly negotiated their surrender directly with the English knights commanding the army. Fortunately, some of the English knights turned out to be their former comrades-in-arms in Prussia, so they had that common bond that made this surrender easier. The chivalric order of knighthood was common bond enough to make such a deal, but the English knights could well sympathize with their French counterparts over the beneath-them peasants and commoners. One of my favorite instances of a common person being knighted by a king was that of one of my heroes, Saint Joan of Arc. As common as they come from a peasant farming family, Joan was knighted by King Charles VII. There are other examples, but I've babbled enough. My apologies. No need to apologize, its a rather interesting topic.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on May 24, 2020 7:13:30 GMT
Nice weapon though, OP. Would match up real nice with a messer as a sidearm. It's a tool as much as a weapon, I'll be using it around the yard. Would pair well with a messer, maybe with a flaming torch too...
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on May 24, 2020 7:18:53 GMT
But wait there's more! This ones double edged, given the length of the socket it's meant to be on a longer handle. The handle I'm using is from something, I have no idea what I found it half buried in an old rail yard. After scientifically testing the wood was sound by whacking it into assorted bits of concrete and brick walls I sanded off the grey weathered outside then started tapering the end. The head fits on ok, not quite as well as I might like but stays on with friction. Don't think I'll be swinging it around yet though. I'm not sure what to do with the socket. It's clearly been damaged in the past, not sure if I should just hammer it down, drill some extra holes and nail it on or maybe fill the socket with epoxy. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on May 24, 2020 11:05:06 GMT
Just to be safe, why not both. Cool project.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on May 25, 2020 12:13:46 GMT
I would try closing that crack in the socket and then repair with a weld. If not I would remove that part as the crack may continue. As I never have like making anything permanent I would secure the head with a nail or two. If necessary I’d shim the haft for a better fit. Tape will do this. An after thought, you could drill a hole at the end of the crack in order to stop further advancement.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on May 27, 2020 14:14:21 GMT
ScottShort of welding the crack together, I would consider wrapping it in a high tensile strength cordage of some sort. I would tightly wrap it starting just above the pin, past the socket, and for an equal distance over the wood. You could combine this with your epoxy fill plan, and might even want to use epoxy or glue under the cord wrap.
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,092
|
Post by LeMal on May 27, 2020 19:45:54 GMT
Weld would probably be best. Certainly epoxy. But similarly: in either/both cases add a rawhide overwrap, including the whole socket and an equal length down the shaft, glued down and stitched closed.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on May 28, 2020 10:40:39 GMT
Hadn't thought of welding it to be honest. I'd need to find someone to weld it for me but that could be arranged. Not sure about epoxy as the blade will outlast the handle and I'd like to have the option of putting it on another handle at that point. I had considered a paracord wrap but rawhide might work better. I'll need to think about this...
|
|