I know nothing of armour and war releted stuff.

=======------=======

I have a hard time finding anything related with Henry IV and armour. Beacuse when you search armour and Henry, only Henry VIII comes up.

I think the picture above depicts the Battle of Shrewsbury, with Henry IV being the guy with red, blue colors and a gold belt.

But I have a few question;

• How accurate is Henry IV armour in the picture above?

• If its accurate, any links were I can read about all the armor parts? (Late 1300s and early 1400s armor)

-Did they wear pants/thight or did they wear hose?😅

-Did Henry IV have multiple sets of armour? Would they all look the same? Or would they all be different for different purposes?

-Would it be easy for peope to find the king among all people? What should you look for, to find him?

-At the Battle of Shrewsbury King Henry's son fought with him.

Would the father and son look different to each other? Armour apperence wise?

Would the king look more fancy then the crown prince?

(Artwork by Graham Turner)

Sorry, I was going to post this to the dedicated Dan Jones sub, but there isn't one, unbelievably.

I think his book Power and Thrones has been removed from Audible. Have other people experienced this and/or know why? I'm a bit annoyed that it's gone.

I might be mistaken, but I believe I have seen proof of patterned fabrics. I know this can be created with embroidery, but was that the sole technique used to create a “patterned” effect when it came to garments? Or were there other techniques employed?

Dearest medievalists, given that vernacular languages were largely unrecognized before the law, can you, please, point me to sources or teach me about the administrative mechanics in court cases, especially the production of court transcripts? Let's imagine I was an English peasant accused of murdering my neighbor in medieval England under Normans.

Two competing views and let’s see who wins!

How much is it a romanticized version of the 1300s, by a artist from the 1900s?

Did the artist not care about the historical accuracy beacuse he just wanted it to look fabulous?

(He did succeed in that)

=======-------======

• How accurate is the clothes?

Did sons of a king wear crowns?

• Who is who in the painting?

Is the man (with the gold mantle) besides Blance, her father?

Were is John of Gaunt? Is he the one to the left with a red cape on?

• In the 1300s, was it a practice for a father to walk his daughter down aisle on her wedding?

• Did the king have a VIP seat?

From my understanding forests were owned by Nobles and Lords, who had for the most part patrols and guards in these areas. Hunting certain game forbidden etc.

If a person wanted to camp on the side of a local road, would the patrol bother them?

If they set up a tent in the middle of the forest, would the Lord forbid this (assuming they are found doing it) ?

Villages being so close together, you probably probably really didn’t need to camp if you just just kept walking, but what if you wanted to?

Were bandits the road at night who are they expecting to see? Did people travel at night?

Pardon my ignorance. These are just questions that come to me as I’m trying to write something.

I’m part of a living history group and I would like to do an impression of a Norman soldier. However, in order for my kit to be approved, they want me to provide grave finds to show evidence that the kit I would like to do is historically accurate. Does anyone know where on the internet I can scour for this kind of evidence?

I’m looking at medieval beauty standards (broad topic, not narrowing in on any one era or specific place), and I got curious about if Richard I was considered attractive. I know that his mother Eleanor was considered quite lovely, and that his father Henry was regarded as rather average-looking, but I can’t really find anything on Richard. Does anyone out there know? I’m also struggling to find any specifics on his appearance, save for a vague reference to him possibly being a redhead.

W

So lets imagine some guy (can be anyone, peasant or a more educated person) from the earlier middle ages around 10th or 9th century somehow ended up in the late middle ages maybe around 1400 how would they react and what would surprise them the most. How much would life be different in that period as opposed to their period.

Pretty much the title.
There is some period art picturing what some call "ovoid"/oval shields which are supposed to be a step inbetween these two (round elongated shape, no boss, straps and a guige instead of a boss grip), but I don't know how widespread these were or if they were even historical. To sort of show what I mean, here's a picture (Aachen situla, c. 1000 AD):

https://preview.redd.it/our0o9irxw0e1.png?width=555&format=png&auto=webp&s=813adffe3ffbc552057d197a743f19230cb91ae2

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I couldn't find anything by searching. I'm looking for a documentary about the early middle ages, roughly the time period between 500-1000AD. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Hi everyone, I've been doing this research for a while now and I can find very little pieces of information. I'm looking for musical instruments, board games, gamblings, toys, sports and theater with the storical sources. Not the usual chivalry games and contests. I found something but everything is rather vague and almost always without sources. Even manuscripts I've found that could be very helpful are not translated in any language or transcripted. Can anyone help me with this?

Thank!!

I made a medieval environment in 3d and some folks told me I was wrong because you could see nail heads fastening the wood planks.

The flooring in question was located in a medieval inn, in case it matters.

I’m doing archive research in London this winter for a research project but I’m not 100% certain what I want to research yet.

I’m fascinated by medieval history. Does anyone have any medieval history research questions?

Just wondering if anyone here has read Men of bone by David penny. It's the first in a series of 'Thomas Berrington Tudor mysterys'. I'm about half way through. It's set in the reign of Henry VII. Preferably leave out any spoilers if you can as I'm only half way through the first one.

How were the forested areas of a populated region be patrolled or kept safe? Especially at night.

Was there just sentry in watch at specific locations? An active guard on foot patrol? Was the forest just no mans land at night? What about illegal hunting at night?

What if someone found a dead body in the woods? As a guard, would you go get someone from higher up from town before moving it or would you carry the body back to town?

I’ve tried to research online but find very little

So a while ago I saw a picture on tiktok of this bed in a hole in the wall. It has curtains and I may be wrong about it being a bed, it could be a seat or something. It looked like it was in some kind of palace/castle and it looked like it was medieval. (Like around the tudor era?) I drew a picture because its kind of hard to describe.

https://preview.redd.it/tkdki7npid0e1.png?width=764&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f1cac279e8cdc119bbd44b03778a7c218aaa21c

Hi, recently I've been looking to pick up a biography of Richard I in order to learn more about him but I'm unsure which Historians work to read. I have previously read the bite sized biography by Thomas asbridge which was part of the penguin monarchs but I'm looking for one that's a bit more detailed. The ones that have caught my eye are:

Richard the Lionheart: The Crusader King of England by W. B Bartlett

Lionheart and Lackland by Frank Mclynn

Richard I by John Gillingham

Are any of these good or should I buy a different one, I'm currently leaning towards W. B Bartlett due to his being more modern but I'm unsure. Thoughts?

I made this snail cat based on a lovely little bit of illumination, and when I posted it in r/embroidery someone said I should post it here too. Hope you like it!

Why or why not is it likely that he supported them?

========-------========

I am aware that he did "protect"John Wycliffe, And I think he had a confessor at some point with a lollard background (I think ).

But do we know if John actually sympathized with John Wycliffe teachings? Or did he simply see it as beneficial at the moment to support it for political gain?

Much of John's involvment seem to have been diretcly tied to his feud with Archbishop of Canterbury William Courtenay (I think)

So politics played a big role, it seems.

=======-------=======

That when bishop Courtenay accused John Wycliffe of heresy and set up a trial.

John may have simply seen that as the bishop trying to humilitate him, beacuse he wanted to destroy somone that was under his protection.

So John rolled up to the trial with four doctors of theology to defend Wyclif and brought with him Henry percy, the Marshal at that time. Which was threatening.

And argument between John and Courtenay broke out, the atmosphere grew more threatening. At one point John of Gaunt threatened the bishiop that he would drag the bishop out of the church by his hair, lol.

The London people that had come to watch felt threatened. That John had brought with him the Marshal, fearing that he planned to takeaway the city privileges. This caused a bit of a riot, and Gaunt, Percy and John Wycliffe had to flee. So the trial never took place

=========-----------========

It is intresting that John's son and grandson seem to have been anti lollards.

Henry IV passed a law that burned heretics(lollards).

But I dont know how much he actually cared, or if he simply passed that law to placate the church after having executing a bishop for rebelion. And this made him not lose the support from the church.

With Henry V, he seems to have felt more strongly about the lollard. That they were heretics and needed to be purged from his kingdom.

My question is about a specific situation that is a bit complex to fully explain in the title.

Suppose the King is in bad health, and his much younger son and crown prince (somehow the King couldn’t father a son when he was younger) is engaged.

The King’s health is kind of an open secret at this point, and the day-to-day running of the court is already delegated to other people, because the old King no longer has the energy to work hard on administrative matters every day. The kingdom is in a generally stable situation, no major military conflict nor other crisis. My question is, is it more preferable for the crown prince to get married right away, or wait a bit and get married as a King? Would the old King and the future-Queen’s father (possibly a foreign King) have different preferences on this matter?

(not talking about the crown prince, the heir. But the second son and downwards.)

If you were the second son among many, was that a automatic ticket for more power, then your younger brothers?

=======---------=======

For example, Edward III and his sons.

He seems to have forgotten his youngest son Thomas, he was first knighted at 22. Dont seem to have had any plans for him.

Edmund the 4th son, dont seem to have been a leader of men, and did not want to get himself too involved in politics.

At the end of Edward III reign, many of his children had died. John of Gaunt being the oldest son alive, held the reins of the goverment.

=========----------==========

Was that the natural conclusion? That the king's eldest son (alive) took up a bigger role in governence?

Or could it have been as easly Edmund that took that role, if he had been more competent and John had been a mess?

Would an older son feel that it was his "right" to weild more power then his younger brothers?

Would he feel slighted if not?

Or was it simply more about personal relationships between family members and competence that played a role in who got more responsibilities?

=========-------------=========

For example, if Lionel of Antwerp the second son of Edward III had lived to old age. Would he have presidence over John of Gaunt in english politics?

Would John's role (in history) transfer to an alive Lionel?

Or would John of Gaunt still been as important in "english politics", even with his older brother Lional alive? Beacuse John still had the great duchy of Lancaster? Which put him above most people anyway.