For more information, you might want to refer readers of the Modus armandi milites to Ralph Moffat, "The Manner of Arming Knights for the Tourney: A Re-Interpretation of an Important Early 14th-Century Arming Treatise," Arms & Armour Vol. 7 No. 1 (2010) pp. 5-29. His very detailed and careful study explains all the unclear terms as well as correcting the Latin transcription (arguably too much: he does not expand the abbreviations in his version of the Latin) although Will may be right that the flagelum is a "whip" not a "flail".
I have quoted him with attribution a few times online (and I am pretty sure that my citation inspired Will to look up the Latin and read it himself), so I want to make sure that he continues to get credit for making this text more widely known. One of the things which frustrates me most about online discussion is that its so difficult to link things to other scholarship.
Sean Manning writes:
ReplyDeleteFor more information, you might want to refer readers of the Modus armandi milites to Ralph Moffat, "The Manner of Arming Knights for the Tourney: A Re-Interpretation of an Important Early 14th-Century Arming Treatise," Arms & Armour Vol. 7 No. 1 (2010) pp. 5-29. His very detailed and careful study explains all the unclear terms as well as correcting the Latin transcription (arguably too much: he does not expand the abbreviations in his version of the Latin) although Will may be right that the flagelum is a "whip" not a "flail".
I have quoted him with attribution a few times online (and I am pretty sure that my citation inspired Will to look up the Latin and read it himself), so I want to make sure that he continues to get credit for making this text more widely known. One of the things which frustrates me most about online discussion is that its so difficult to link things to other scholarship.