King Arthur Weapons

1271 Words3 Pages

The Legend of King Arthur and his Knights includes many weapons such as swords, bows, armor, and catapults. Many people wonder whether the King Arthur of the 5th & 6th century actually existed or not. One way to separate the facts from the fables is to look at the weapons mentioned in the stories, (which were first written in the 12th century), and see if they're the same weapons used at that time. If there are weapons in the stories that weren’t around until the 12th century, then we will know that these legends are more Myth than History.
First off, I want you to know that there are many types of single bladed weapons used by medieval knights and kings, and each of them had specific uses. Some examples of the different types are swords, daggers, …show more content…

This weapon goes by many names due to the fact that there were so many different designs used to change the way it released projectiles and how far they wanted it to go. A few of the popular designs were the Trebuchet, a giant sling like object the fired using a counter weight on the end of its fulcrum.; the Mangonel, the traditional catapult that had a arm with a bucket on the end that was pulled back then released to fire; and the Ballista, a crossbow type machine that was much larger to the point to where the “arrows” were closer to the size of a spear. The great thing about these weapons was that they had almost no limit to the amount of things that could be used as ammunition! Some of the more unique ones include (but not limited to) stones, burning tar/sand, quicklime (a type of fire that burned well especially on water), Greek fire (composition still not known), Dung, wooden poles, body parts, dead animals, and even dead people, especially if they had some sort of disease (https://sites.google.com/site/physicsofcatapults/home/history-of-catapults). The only one of these was before the supposed King Arthur’s time, the Mangonel which didn't exist until the 12th century. Also there are very few stories that have to deal with catapults and King Arthur so this doesn't cause much of a problem with the …show more content…

(http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2012/06/20/evolution-of-armor/) (https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Roman-armour-protect-the-arms-and-legs)
Also according to these same sources, the full head helmet wasn't around till the 12th century. So then it causes a problem with many different tales, specifically the one's where the knights and/or kings couldn't tell who they were fighting in battle because their face(s) were covered. One of these well know stories is The Black Knight. This is really King Pellinore in black armor, but King Arthur did not know this until after the battle when he pulled off his helmet. It was also the same when King Arthur fought Sir Accalon, one of his fellow knights, neither knew who the other was until their helmets were taken off (King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table by Howard Pyle (Calico Illustrated). You would think that if they only had helmets like the ones above that they would see one another’s face and be able to recognize them. Instead they make it sound like they’re wearing full coverage helmets where the only thing you see is slits of the opponent’s eyes. But it would be nearly impossible for that to happen, since those types of helmets weren’t used until around the 12th century. This is a very important clue that helps show the inconsistencies of the times King Arthur

More about King Arthur Weapons

Open Document