Jaroslav, I agree with that and I agree with thoise who are horrified when some clown wants to be a samurai in a late 15th or even 16th Century European setting. Sure, it is distantly possible but it is MOST unlikely. The same would go for Japanese weaponry.
But I also do know that the question of the use of lamellar armor by the 10th & 11th Century Normans is nowhere near as closed as some would have it. We know from sculptures and manuscripts that the Carolingians were using lamellar, as were the Byzantines, the Slavs, the Magyars, and the Moors/Saracens. We also know, from amuscripts, sculptures, and the Charlemagne chess men that the Italo-Normans and the Sicilo-Normans used it. There is some evidence of an admittedly questionable nature of its use in Scandanavia during this period. Also, some of the Lewes chess men appear to be wearing lamellar. Finally, the use of lamellar in Britain from Roman times on through Anglo-Saxon times has been established. So, the question is, if everyone around them is using lamellar, why does one insist that it is impossible for a Norman to use it?
Perhaps I need to rephrase my statement: "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It depends upon the reasonableness of the claim" Long plaids in the 13th Century, as in "Braveheart" is not reasonable and was ridiculous, as was the blue woad face-painting. So was his seduction by the Isabella of France, who would have been about 8 years old, max, when he was executed. (But it made for a lovely scene at Edward I's deathbed.) But not to pick on Mel Gibson alone, how about the jouney of the sorely wounded Maximus from the forests of Germany to Baetica in Southwestern Spain, all in time to find the still-fresh bodies of his wife and son. Or his being grabbed off by an African gladiatorial trainer in Spain? Or that Marcus Aurelius ever intended to do anything but leave the throne to his son, Commodus?
But I also do know that the question of the use of lamellar armor by the 10th & 11th Century Normans is nowhere near as closed as some would have it. We know from sculptures and manuscripts that the Carolingians were using lamellar, as were the Byzantines, the Slavs, the Magyars, and the Moors/Saracens. We also know, from amuscripts, sculptures, and the Charlemagne chess men that the Italo-Normans and the Sicilo-Normans used it. There is some evidence of an admittedly questionable nature of its use in Scandanavia during this period. Also, some of the Lewes chess men appear to be wearing lamellar. Finally, the use of lamellar in Britain from Roman times on through Anglo-Saxon times has been established. So, the question is, if everyone around them is using lamellar, why does one insist that it is impossible for a Norman to use it?
Perhaps I need to rephrase my statement: "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It depends upon the reasonableness of the claim" Long plaids in the 13th Century, as in "Braveheart" is not reasonable and was ridiculous, as was the blue woad face-painting. So was his seduction by the Isabella of France, who would have been about 8 years old, max, when he was executed. (But it made for a lovely scene at Edward I's deathbed.) But not to pick on Mel Gibson alone, how about the jouney of the sorely wounded Maximus from the forests of Germany to Baetica in Southwestern Spain, all in time to find the still-fresh bodies of his wife and son. Or his being grabbed off by an African gladiatorial trainer in Spain? Or that Marcus Aurelius ever intended to do anything but leave the throne to his son, Commodus?
.......
