Reenactor here, I'm looking for evidence of weapons similar to the cleaver thing being used on the guy in the foreground in the 1150-1250 period in europe. My groups rules state that I need either two more written references, one more picture, or one surviving artefact as proof. Can anyone help?
Also, general reenactor thread
The problem is that your weapon might not actually exist. Lots of artists never actually saw the things they created, and if they did it was only a glimpse. My best guess though if I had to is that its some kind of messer.
>in the 1150-1250 period
Firstly your own source is an outlier on your target dates, being dated to around 1250 - ref; Allison Stones, "Questions of style and provenance in the Morgan Bible"
the first evidence for those proto-messer type weapons is in the 1240's, so they're really not applicable to your chosen dates unless you are pushing the absolute edge of that window.
also Where, and what social class? What was used in southern france is entirely different to modern-day Lithuania.
Also, why are you using an *entire fucking century* for your re-enactment?
how stupid would reenacting a "20th century" soldier be, by wearing a WW1 helmet, a plate carrier chest rig, WW2 Garand with Gulf War optics, and Vietnam style tigerstripe camo clothing?
Just because the fashions change a bit less rapidly than today doesnt mean you can use an entire _century_ for sources, and not look bloody stupid.
The groups justification for it was set during the 80s or something. They basically decided to start at roughly the end of the second crusade and end right when things like coats of plate come in after 1250. The basic idea for that was aparently that knights looked extremely different outside of this margin, but roughly the same within
As for the social class and place, lower nobility like knights and the place is the kingdom of Jerusalem so that we can have gear sets from all through christendom, sticking around after the crusade
Quick edit - I should clarify, the "proto-messer type weapons" are more referring to this type (the broad-bladed type), than than the short-hafted glaive.
The whole thing of using a century as target remains.
>The groups justification for it was set during the 80s or something.
Kindly beat the organisers around the head for me then. Cease when they finally accept that a 100-year timespan is bloody stupid.
That shit gets on my tits.
(In case you hadnt guessed.)
In that case, chances of a source for that are even less - though one thing I will link for you - look for bronze pommelled daggers like this for Jerusalem - they were _extremely_ fashionable there:
I do have an archaeological example of a surviving cut-down hafted glaive, but its late 13th C, so outside your window.
technically, you can break them, by doing it better.
if your window is 100 years, then you can narrow it down to 50. or 25, preferably.
and doing so, you're giving two fingers up to muppets who do the "we're (n)th century" as if that's sufficient narrowing down.
(be glad. I've worked with people who narrowed their 15th C. source material down to their target date, +/- 5 years. )
Hows about something like a Glaive or halberd?
found this example in "hafted weapons in medieval and renaissance europe" but I'm unsure as to the timing of it and would honestly prefer something balanced a bit more like a Volgue
To clarify, since most of the persona are of european extraction, moving to the kingdom of jerusalem, the group rules that any set of equipment from anywhere in europe can be used with apropriate doccumentation
tfw rendezvous era re-enacter in Australia, (pretty much revenant era) don't take it seriously, majority in re-enactment gear, others not, shoo muzzle-loaders all day, throw tomahawks and knives, drinks booze, repeat next day. so based.
I am borderline autistic about my own kit and equipment, but have fully stopped caring about what other people wear and do (within reason obviously). Someone else's idea of a good time is to walk around in a tattered tunic and an English Civil War breastplate? Good. More power to you. You're making me look better by comparison.
depends what kind of crossbow, on the battlefield you had everything from a hunting crossbow, which is a small crossbow intended to be used on horseback, weak enough to draw with your hands, to full-blown siege crossbows (arbalest), these had bows made from steel and took an assembly of levers and cranks to draw. So yeah, siege crossbows would probably pierce steel armor.
Why do you imagine that it costs anything different, to focus on one particular decade, compared to an entire century?
To get stuff from one century around 1150-1250, you need:
Shoes. clothes. a hat. a belt. a knife.
If you're doing military, then you need some of: a coif (padded), a gambeson, a mail hauberk, a weapon - hafted or bladed, a helm - haume, or kettlehat.
To get stuff from 1240-1250 (or 1150-60, or whatever), you need:
Shoes. clothes. a hat. a belt. a knife.
If you're doing military, then you need some of: a coif, a gambeson, a mail hauberk, a weapon - hafted or bladed, a helm - haume, or kettlehat.
And a little bit more care and attention. The cost is identical. The only difference is you're doing the research right, to make sure that the objects are from the same style. This hardly adds 1.25 billion dollars to the expenses.
Trying to say its more expensive is nothing but a lazy excuse.
there's enough references to mail having "holes rent through it" that its plausible.
conversely, we speak of firearms "blowing a hole though" someone, when the majority of gunshot wounds dont do such a thing. So it may well be a figure of speech.
Puncture mail? no doubt. A rare few cutting blows shear mail? yes, probably. Most strikes go through mail and body alike? Probably pretty rare.