Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Malris6 t1_j9u770c wrote

Hi! I've pondering these questions for weeks now, but still could not find the answers. Hope you can help me.

https://imgur.com/a/rgtTpXy

Was the medieval armour evolution and general style(pic. 1) universal across the Europe(aside from the Eastern part)?

If not, did the Normans severely change the military armour style of the Anglo-Saxons? Would the English have evolved their protective gear on their own towards coat of plates, plated brigandines, surcoats etc.(pic. 2, I've chosen Denmark, beacuse the Danes are probably the closest to the Anglo-Saxons, since they are both Germanic and from about the same geographical region) or would they have gone for something like Anglo-Saxon based Rohan soldiers have(pic. 3-4) in the LOTR movies(I know they are fiction, but it can be somewhat considered as a possible way of progression)?

Also, it is known the origin of the English Longbow is disputed, but is it safe to assume the Normans heavily prompted archey in England since it is they who started a battle by bowmen.

Sorry for any possible inaccuracies.

1

Sgt_Colon t1_j9wt06z wrote

I'm guessing this is for some alternate history thing?

The first image for 1100 would have been broadly accurate for western Europe during the preceding 11^th C, while regional variations existed, they tend to be not overly pronounced unless economic factors (like in the celtic fringe) enter play. Later English plate armour did see variation from continental patterns, favouring longer rerebraces than other continental styles, perhaps as a reflection of the English predilection for fighting on foot at the time, but were at a glance similar to the general trend of plate armours. While Peter Jackson's Rohirrim are fictional, the use of leather over maille in the form of cuir boiulle was an actual historical trend during the late 13^th to early 14^th C as a sort of proto plate armour during the transitional period with some extent pieces surviving.

Regarding archery, while the Normans seem to have imported the Frankish custom of the poorest levies being armed as bowmen, the Saxons too practiced archery and seemed to have incorporated it into the 'shieldwall'. Archery for both peoples wasn't very respected, even compared to fighting in the main line of battle as a common levy and would only see a greater degree of use following the battle of Falkirk and the effective display of archery by the welsh brought along by Edward I. Prior to this, archers were seen as being of limited overall importance (see the ineffective stopping power against even unarmoured targets such as that at the battle of the standard for example) albeit a necessary one, being valued significantly less than crossbowmen who performed far better in terms of range and power. Clifford Rogers goes into some detail regarding what I've written. What the course of English warfare may have been had the Saxons repulsed the Normans is uncertain, although it is possible if the tradition of fighting on foot continued that it may have mirrored the latter English practice during the Hundred Years wars with massed archers and well armed heavy infantry although it may have just as likely have went the same path as Denmark and adopted aristocratic heavy cavalry in some form.

2

Malris6 t1_j9y5c44 wrote

Got it! Just wanted to sort it out for myself. Thanks!

1