"Harness/booms again?" Topic

From "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades":

"Knights in plate-armor suits had to be lifted onto their saddles by booms; if they fell off they coul not rise to their feet to fight on…" (pp.72)

Really? I've read other authors debunk this as a myth. Was Stark describing Renaissance jousting armor or what here?

"Knights in plate-armor suits had to be lifted onto their saddles by booms; if they fell off they coul not rise to their feet to fight on…" (pp.72)

Utter rubbish.

As said above – this is utter nonsense. In the 15th century knights are frequently described as vaulting into the saddle – These were fit guys !

Its rubbish. I've seen guys in full plate armour – they were just as mobile as you are without it. They fell over, stood up, jumped, everything. The difference is that you get knackered more quickly carrying the weight and have to take a breather more often!

Anyway, weren't the Crusades over by the time full plate came in?

I've worn a three quarters (no leg armour) plate armour simply because I was the only one that fitted it.
They made me run with it, climb stairs and kneel, lay down and get up. It felt like wearing a heavy leather coat but nothing more. The helmet was the worst since it didn't fit all that well and kept sliding around.

Anyway, weren't the Crusades over by the time full plate came in?

According to this site:
link

the last and Ninth Cusade occured in 1271-1272. Full plate armour did not become available until the late 14th and 15th centuries, so yes you are correct.

Mr. Rodney Stark is wrong on both counts!

Absolute rot. A fable created and reinforced by Laurence Olivier in his Henry V, which the then-Keeper of the Royal Armouries told him wasn't true, but he ignored him because it suited his artistic image.

This is absolute rot and has been debunked so long ago no-one ever, ever, ever has an excuse for trotting it out again in print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yours, one very agry medieval military historian.

As to the end of the crusades pre-dating plate armour; ity all depends on what you think of as crusades. Although the ninth crusade did indeed occur in 1271-2, there were continuing crusades in the Baltic, led by the Teutonic Order, goin on into the latter half of the fourteenth century. There were also campaigns in north Africa (mostly led by Spanish and Portuguese knights) which counted. The battle of Nicopolis in 1396 saw an an international western European army defeated by Ottomans (and was considered a crusading enterprise. Finally, of course, you have the continuing war between the Ottomans and the Order of St John on Rhodes and Malta.

I have personally seen a guy in full, 15th century German gothic plate, helm and all, do a standing back flip.

I have worn some of it, and fought in it. Well made armor does almost nothing to slow down your agility or speed. Well made, being the key words.

What it does take from you is your endurance. After an hour or two fighting in the stuff, you are in a much more fatigued state than you would be doing the same activity wearing shorts. =)

And I would agree. Absolute rot is the perfect set of words describing plate armor in the Crusades.

This is absolute rot and has been debunked so long ago no-one ever, ever, ever has an excuse for trotting it out again in print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently the book was originally published in 2009.

But it shows how stoopid war really is…..

How surprising that the history is poorly researched. And in a book arguing the Crusades were a good idea, and not about conquest at all. All those smug historians and their facts, just waiting to be overturned by vehement assertion.

All those smug historians and their facts, just waiting to be overturned by vehement assertion.

Rodney Stark is not a historian. He is "an American sociologist of religion"
link

Indeed. All I was ascribing to Stark was "vehement assertion". A polite way of saying to someone they have not proved anything, merely stated their claim repeatedly.

Of some of the published reviews for Stark, quoted in the editorial reviews section of the Amazon page:

"frontal assault on the comfortable myths that scholars have popularized"
"Stark provides an account of the Crusades perfectly fitted for the Fox News audience."
"Rodney Stark turns what we ‘know' about history on its head."

Those were all written and intended as praise, I believe.

You would be better off using Wikipedia as a trusted academic source.

I'm now warned I was considering that book. Not any more.

x42

Back to my original post though, was there every any kind of tournament jousting armor that might need cranes or somesuch? Or is this image of knights being lowered into saddles totally fictional? Just wondering.

was there ever any kind of tournament jousting armor that might need cranes or somesuch?

No.

Or is this image of knights being lowered into saddles totally fictional?

Yes.
"Jousting" armour was not really very different to field armour.

"These pieces of armour show the specific parts which would be substituted or added to Henry VIII's field and tournament armour for jousting.

See the heavy protection needed for the face and left side, the main areas at risk in jousting."

from: link

So jousting armour was just a modified version of field armour.

Or was it the other way around his field armour was just a modified version of his jousting armour.

I'd have though Jean de Valette, in his 70's, would have struggled to fight, in the heat, with such heavy armour. Where did this idea come from? Are there any contemporary drawings/illustrations?

I'd have though Jean de Valette, in his 70's, would have struggled to fight, in the heat, with such heavy armour.

As others have said it's not the weight but the fatigue. I presume you are referring to his preence at the Siege of Malta in 1565. How do we know whether he was wearing armour then or not? How do we know how active he was in the fighting?

La Vallette at malta 1565. Looks like he is wearing one of those lightweight f almain rivet type armours under his surcoat.

I've read somewhere that the last of the tournament armor was indeed very heavy, this would be long, long after armor was worn cap-a-pie in combat, and jousting armor was simply that: for the joust and nothing but the joust. We are probably looking at the late 17th century and going into the 18th, when jousting died out. That period, I propose, is when "craning" the jouster into the saddle occurred, and the armor was nigh on a hundred pounds. All the jouster had to do was keep his seat and lower his lance, no acrobatics involved at all. Of course, such a spectacle would completely corrupt any audience's view of the past and create the myth that "plate armor" was too heavy to get up in once you were down, etc….

GWA have you looked at any of these armours? The collections in the Tower of London, les Invaludes, , the Escorial, all contain tournament armours of the sixteenth century, really the last dates for tournaments. These armours were heavy and you are right that the knight had only to go straight forward, but they are not so heavy that a knight could not walk in them. When they mounted they used mounting blocks with teps, walked up a few steps and into the saddle. So no, there was never a need for cranes and hoists, even for tournaments.
Knights are op chaps and not at all likely to do something as laughable as have their servants swinging them around on a crane.

We are probably looking at the late 17th century and going into the 18th, when jousting died out.

Um, no …:

"The last Elizabethan Accession Day tilt was held in November 1602; Elizabeth died the following spring. Tilts continued as part of festivities marking the Accession Day of James I, 24 March, until 1624, the year before his death.[15][16] In the early 17th century, the joust was replaced as the equine highlight of court festivities by large "horse-ballet" displays called carousels, although non-combat competitions such as the ring-tilt lasted until the 18th century."
link