Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Monkey Face
I have a memory of a History Channel show about Knights. They were small compared to us a little shorter and a lot thinner.

Can you imagine wearing that amount of armor and not a McDonald’s withing riding distance.

33 posted on 05/21/2010 6:17:41 AM PDT by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: dangerdoc

Sorry, but that’s a fallacy. The armor seen in museums and private collections are small for a reason. They were shown to the knights as samples, and then the armor was built to fit the knight. History Channel leaves a lot to be desired.

A small man could not carry the weight of the armor needed in battle (remember it was IRON) and still move as deftly as war demanded. They also had to carry shields and broadswords, neither of which could be wielded by small men.

Knights were the best-fed, best-paid athletes of their day. They were not small and thin, or they could not have done what they did. And a lot of them outlived their contemporaries due to the better food and life-style.

Some were killed in wars, but for the most part, knights were awesome men. They were called knights, because they were knighted by the King and given the title “Sir.” This, too, was because of their prowess and bravery in wartime.


34 posted on 05/21/2010 6:27:02 AM PDT by Monkey Face (I wear a yellow ribbon for my army hero grandson, and for the intrepid CG explorer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson