|
Blue Star posted:Some questions about medieval navies and boats: *Swedes, though who knows with the Romans, not exactly that knowledgeable about Scandinavia.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:Some questions about medieval navies and boats: I am curious about this too. I was under the impression that the Saxons at least derived much of their culture from the Vikings. Is that true? And I also thought that there were Vikings in Ireland as well. I am really curious as to how the Celts made it to Britain to later be known as the Scots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:I'm pretty sure proto celts from Iberia were in Britain long long before the later immigration waves that we associate more with the British population. And before them were the awesomely named "Beaker people", but this is getting very off-topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:I'm pretty sure proto celts from Iberia were in Britain long long before the later immigration waves that we associate more with the British population. Forgive me, I've heard the term "proto-celts" before but not sure exactly with whom they are related now. Are the proto-celts the Scots? I didn't even know they all originally came from Iberia; I just assumed they were essentially native peoples of Britain, minus the Scots, who, I originally thought, came from Ireland. We may be moving back into land-bridge and Pangaea territory now though, right? I mean, if we're talking about how they got there. But yeah, we are getting off topic a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Pangaea? You mean the thing that existed 250 million years before the extinction of the dinosaurs? No, it was not involved in the settlement of the British Isles. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Yeah, Pangaea does not have anything to do with the settlement of the British Isles, at least not any more than it has to do with all history after its formation. You're right though that there was a land bridge between the British Isles and continental Europe, which pre-historic humans might have used to crossover to Britain before it was washed away. That's way outside the Medieval era though! Arriving by boat seems like another sensible option, given that the South Pacific was settled the same way, and the distances there are quite a bit more challenging. Still, the readjustment after the glaciers retreated would have made the landscape of the Medieval era different from what we know today. Basically, there's a line going approximately from Scotland to southern Denmark and across the southern edge of Baltic Sea and through the Baltic Countries to the White Sea where everything* south of it has been sinking and north of it rising, at a pace that's actually relevant to people. Medieval Sweden and Finland in particular would be an area that would look very different, with the sea penetrating further inland than it does today. *OK, not everything, only for some hundreds of miles. The sinking is also far less pronounced than the rise in northern Scandinavia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Pangaea? A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, Pangaea does not have anything to do with the settlement of the British Isles, at least not any more than it has to do with all history after its formation. You're right though that there was a land bridge between the British Isles and continental Europe, which pre-historic humans might have used to crossover to Britain before it was washed away. That's way outside the Medieval era though! Arriving by boat seems like another sensible option, given that the South Pacific was settled the same way, and the distances there are quite a bit more challenging. Thanks guys for setting me straight, for some reason I was thinking Pangaea was much later. But I guess you guys got the gist of my post. I have no doubt that ships were probably the main mode of transportation, but I am confused as to how the Scots got there and why they went. Isn't it at least pretty well-known that the Vikings were the most skilled sea-farers of the time, since they had to use ships to raid pretty much anywhere? It seems to me, from archaeological finds and such, that much of their lives revolved around seamanship and settling in conquered lands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Thanks guys for setting me straight, for some reason I was thinking Pangaea was much later. But I guess you guys got the gist of my post. I have no doubt that ships were probably the main mode of transportation, but I am confused as to how the Scots got there and why they went. Isn't it at least pretty well-known that the Vikings were the most skilled sea-farers of the time, since they had to use ships to raid pretty much anywhere? It seems to me, from archaeological finds and such, that much of their lives revolved around seamanship and settling in conquered lands. What I'm saying is that to the best of my knowledge the population hasnt changed much, the scots is the name of a cultural group but nearly all british people are descended from iberian settlers who arrived in ~3000 bc (probably wrong there). This is based on recent genetic studies of the british isles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Thanks guys for setting me straight, for some reason I was thinking Pangaea was much later. But I guess you guys got the gist of my post. I have no doubt that ships were probably the main mode of transportation, but I am confused as to how the Scots got there and why they went. Isn't it at least pretty well-known that the Vikings were the most skilled sea-farers of the time, since they had to use ships to raid pretty much anywhere? It seems to me, from archaeological finds and such, that much of their lives revolved around seamanship and settling in conquered lands. Here's the thing to consider: the English Channel is narrow enough in spots that some people are capable of swimming across it. Yeah, the Vikings were amazing ship builders, but you didn't exactly need to be a seasoned seafaring culture to make it across the English Channel. Basically anybody that was anywhere near that area of the world and capable of making something that floated for more than a week could have made a trip to England. As for the why, it probably isn't some deep reason. My assumption is the typical reason that people migrate. Some people looked around the place they were living and said "You know what? gently caress this place." and went to live somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:As for the why, it probably isn't some deep reason. My assumption is the typical reason that people migrate. Some people looked around the place they were living and said "You know what? gently caress this place." and went to live somewhere else. I say this daily at work and at home and I'm stuck in both. At any rate, good info, thanks guys. I'll probably think of more stupid questions later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I have no doubt that ships were probably the main mode of transportation, but I am confused as to how the Scots got there and why they went. This isn't really medieval history. ToxicSlurpee posted:Here's the thing to consider: the English Channel is narrow enough in spots that some people are capable of swimming across it. Yeah, the Vikings were amazing ship builders, but you didn't exactly need to be a seasoned seafaring culture to make it across the English Channel. Basically anybody that was anywhere near that area of the world and capable of making something that floated for more than a week could have made a trip to England. No, the Norse really did have far superior naval technology, or at least, better shipbuilders. They clinker-built their ships, they used exactly the right woods, they kept great care of their ships. In addition, the Vikings had some way that we're not entirely sure of of passing on navigational information. The best that we can interpret from the sources we have is that they used the locations of currents and the directions of winds, as well as landmarks where available, in order to navigate, based on accrued knowledge. Some people speculate they had other tech too, like polarized crystals for sun-finding, but there's no real strong evidence for that. The written records we have of their navigational charts, though, show that they were amazingly accurate. The question of why the Viking expansion began is one with a lot of theoretical answers but no strong prevailing theory. They may have had an overpopulation with not enough farming land, they might have simply wanted to expand trade markets and the warfare was a side effect of the Christians not being willing to trade with them-- not that they didn't also raid trading partners. There is also a theory that it was just technology driven-- that as their boats got better and their navigational techniques superior, they were able to attack other lands without any fear of counterattack. Not only were their boats superior, their home ports were a nightmare to reach for foreigners, impossible in many cases without pilots who knew the waters. And even if the British or the Franks had such pilots and such ships, they weren't going to be able to mount a long-range punitive expedition with very uncertain success and no possibility of actual subjugation. During this period, the Vikings also took over poo poo. They went into France, and the Normans have a lot of Scandinavian, particularly Danish, influence in them, and the ship technology they brought with them is part of the reason that the Norman invasion of England was successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't really medieval history. Noted, but considering the Scots were around during the time the Danes were antagonizing the Saxons in Britain and neither wanted to mess with them, and also the fact that this thread contains questions and answers related to Swedish, Danish and Scandinavian Vikings, I assumed it was at least slightly within the scope of the thread. But I digress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Noted, but considering the Scots were around during the time the Danes were antagonizing the Saxons in Britain and neither wanted to mess with them, and also the fact that this thread contains questions and answers related to Swedish, Danish and Scandinavian Vikings, I assumed it was at least slightly within the scope of the thread. But I digress. I'm sorry, I don't get how your question of how the Scots got there is related to Medieval history. The Scots had been there for a long time, no matter how you define them, before medieval times. So, it'd be pretty much definitely not medieval history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, I don't get how your question of how the Scots got there is related to Medieval history. The Scots had been there for a long time, no matter how you define them, before medieval times. So, it'd be pretty much definitely not medieval history. The specifics of the questions I was asking in support to another question kind of evolved into that, but the discussion was over by the time you said anything; not to mention there wasn't even substantial discussion on it. Thus I'm not sure why you thought it was a big enough deal to even say anything. But to not derail the thread any further, and because I wasn't really trying to argue with you in the first place, we can move on now. I hope that's okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Why were the 'Serene Republics' (Venice, Genoa & Pisa) never conquered during the medieval ages?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I have read a lot about royal hostages in non-fiction and in fiction. Was this a thing? I took it to be insurance against a defeated enemy who was allowed to retain their lands from rising up again, in fear their heir would be killed in retaliation. Is this about what it was, or was it more akin to ransoming? Did said hostage retain his or her noble status and were they treated by their conquerors in keeping with their status, or were they more or less ill-treated prisoners with no privileges? This dude is about to publish a book on this subject. He has an article out on the same topic already - PM me if you're interested and I can probably email you a pdf of it. Von Bek fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:During this period, the Vikings also took over poo poo. They went into France, and the Normans have a lot of Scandinavian, particularly Danish, influence in them, and the ship technology they brought with them is part of the reason that the Norman invasion of England was successful. By 1066 the Normans did not really wage war differently from other members of the Frankish sphere. Additionally, the voyage to Pevensey was not perilous. Wace claims that only two ships out of hundreds were lost, and they may have been overburdened. If the technology helped, its effect was not really measurable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:By 1066 the Normans did not really wage war differently from other members of the Frankish sphere. Additionally, the voyage to Pevensey was not perilous. Wace claims that only two ships out of hundreds were lost, and they may have been overburdened. If the technology helped, its effect was not really measurable. I'm not sure what you mean by the Normans' not waging war differently; I wasn't claiming they were. The English fleet, however, was quite powerful and also well-constructed. I know in the actual invasion, the enemy fleet was scattered, but the plan included actual naval fighting as well. I guess it'd be more fair to say that their naval technology made them think the invasion was feasible. I'm sure that this technology was disseminated through the Frankish sphere, but that doesn't really contradict what I'm saying. The Norman seamanship shows itself best in their conquests in Italy and beyond. This is a great book about the foundations of naval technology in Europe post-Rome. http://www.amazon.com/reassessment-Frankish-Anglo-Saxon-Seafaring-Activity/dp/189828122X
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Why were the 'Serene Republics' (Venice, Genoa & Pisa) never conquered during the medieval ages? Pisa was conquered by Florence in 1406. As to Venice and Genoa, they were wealthy port cities with strong navies, located in favorable defensive terrain. Genoa is located in mountainous Liguria, hard between mountains and sea, making it somewhat difficult to access from the landward side if the Genoese didn't want you to. It also had sufficient wealth to build fortifications and maintain mercenary forces for its defense, the ease of resupply by sea made it practically impossible to take by siege. Venice was an even more impossible task, because it was located on an island in a huge lagoon controlled by the Venetian Navy, and the territory surrounding the lagoon was disease-filled swamps. Those cities were just situated in extremely strong defensive positions, and that's why they were unconquered for such a long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Pisa was conquered by Florence in 1406.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The Norman seamanship shows itself best in their conquests in Italy and beyond. What have you read about Norman fleets in the Med? I only really know about their conquest of Sicily and involvement in the First Crusade, neither of which required skilled sailing. From what I remember from looking at some of Bernard Bachrach's stuff the Italo-Normans basically just integrated Greek sailors and ships, rather than construct norse-style ships or import Norman sailors. EvanSchenck posted:As to Venice and Genoa, they were wealthy port cities with strong navies, located in favorable defensive terrain. Genoa is located in mountainous Liguria, hard between mountains and sea, making it somewhat difficult to access from the landward side if the Genoese didn't want you to. It also had sufficient wealth to build fortifications and maintain mercenary forces for its defense, the ease of resupply by sea made it practically impossible to take by siege. Venice was an even more impossible task, because it was located on an island in a huge lagoon controlled by the Venetian Navy, and the territory surrounding the lagoon was disease-filled swamps. Those cities were just situated in extremely strong defensive positions, and that's why they were unconquered for such a long time. The bigger issue, as I see it, is that very rarely could anyone be bothered. The Italians that the Holy Roman Empire cared about were in Pavia, Milan and eventually Sicily and Naples. The men of Languedoc, meanwhile, were too busy fighting each other and Franks to the north to bother, and none of the nearby Italian cities were powerful enough to go after Genoa itself. As for Venice, the Croats were always busy fighting the Hungarians, the Hungarians were always busy fighting everyone except the Polish, and again the HRE wasn't very interested and the rest of the Italian powers were too weak or too far away. That is partially a function of their strong positions no doubt, but the siege of Genoa in 1522 only lasted 10 days, so its position couldn't have been too strong. Venice's swampy country was more dangerous, to be certain, but I doubt if a Duke or King really wanted to expend enough effort that he couldn't take it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
are you familiar with the medieval, total war games? If so, are they historically sound, generally? Also, because I am a dork that grew up with ridiculous video games tropes, was wielding two swords, or a dagger and a sword, or two daggers, etc, ever a smart thing to do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 12:45
|
|
|
This is more ancient history but is there a direct cultural and linguistic link from whatever ancient indo-aryan tribes who created Sanskrit and founded Zoroastrianism/Hinduism to Sarmatians/Scythians and then eventually Sicambri/Frisii/Other germanic tribes? I think Scythians are mentioned as allies of Germanic tribes during the Macromanic wars. This may sound ridiculous but all kinds of Europeans have tried to claim Sarmatian/Scythian descent, from Polish nobles to Ossentians. I think Iranians were even considered "aryan" under Nazi law and of course the whole Hitler co-opting the Swastika thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What have you read about Norman fleets in the Med? http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/527/958.full Please note I don't agree with his analysis of the motives and understanding of the Norman leaders, but there's a real wealth of primary and secondary research there. Also, the logistical skill of the Normans as seafarers is something I'm including, I guess loosely, in 'technology'. Even at the beginning of the Viking age they were able to field very large flotillas that demonstrate an excellent logistical ability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Scionix posted:are you familiar with the medieval, total war games? If so, are they historically sound, generally? The tactical battles generally had accurate representations of what various kinds of soldiers did and are probably a reasonable interpretation of battles from the era, just very, very time compressed. The economics and politics really don't have much basis in reality and are just a game mechanism. I think the only game I've ever seen that is even close to being an accurate interpretation of medieval politics and economy is Crusader Kings 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:This is more ancient history but is there a direct cultural and linguistic link from whatever ancient indo-aryan tribes who created Sanskrit and founded Zoroastrianism/Hinduism to Sarmatians/Scythians and then eventually Sicambri/Frisii/Other germanic tribes? I think Scythians are mentioned as allies of Germanic tribes during the Macromanic wars. This may sound ridiculous but all kinds of Europeans have tried to claim Sarmatian/Scythian descent, from Polish nobles to Ossentians. I think Iranians were even considered "aryan" under Nazi law and of course the whole Hitler co-opting the Swastika thing. Well, I don't know what you mean about a 'direct link' but the Indo-European language group is called that because, well, they're in the same group. The most striking example I always hear is Dyaus Pitr who shows up in Hindu myths. Dyaus Pitr/Jupiter/Zeus Pater. (Or pateras whatever, it's father. You probably recognize as the Latin pater, but it's the same in both. Fun fact, words that are used often 'drift' the least between language groups. Mother and Father, along with all the 'family' words have drifted the least.  ) Sooo... it's not crazy in the sense that there are some fun linguistic cultural roots, it is crazy in the whole race-as-something-other-than-a-construct blonde white demi-gods sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:This is more ancient history but is there a direct cultural and linguistic link from whatever ancient indo-aryan tribes who created Sanskrit and founded Zoroastrianism/Hinduism to Sarmatians/Scythians and then eventually Sicambri/Frisii/Other germanic tribes? I think Scythians are mentioned as allies of Germanic tribes during the Macromanic wars. This may sound ridiculous but all kinds of Europeans have tried to claim Sarmatian/Scythian descent, from Polish nobles to Ossentians. I think Iranians were even considered "aryan" under Nazi law and of course the whole Hitler co-opting the Swastika thing. I wonder if this question wouldn't find a better answer in the Greco-Roman/Ancient History thread, but it's something that'd I'd be interested in getting an answer to. I hope it's ok with you if I cross-post your question there. Similarly, I'd like to know more about the origins of the Celts- what were the circumstances of their arrival in Europe, and what patterns of migration lead to their settlement of the British Isles? And what were the pre-Indo-European people of Europe like? Were Basque and Etruscan cultures good representations of the earliest peoples of Europe, generally? EDIT: I reposted the question, along with my own. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3486446&pagenumber=94#post413045178 SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
the JJ posted:(Or pateras whatever, it's father. You probably recognize as the Latin pater, but it's the same in both. Fun fact, words that are used often 'drift' the least between language groups. Mother and Father, along with all the 'family' words have drifted the least. This is a pretty big over-simplification and is ignoring that often really, really common words are loans. "very" for instance is a loan. Also, sound-changes can make things basically unrecognizable and those often affect frequent words more. Finally, as nice as family words changing the least would be, it's not true : certainly they "drift" very little, but the least likely word to "drift" appears to be "louse", as in the bug, of all god drat things. Language is weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Scionix posted:are you familiar with the medieval, total war games? If so, are they historically sound, generally? The Total War games are good basic approximations of a lot of stuff. They just compress everything and simplify it, sometimes extremely. The country names are just "The Danes" or "France" when things were far more complicated. They also simplify the types of weapons used and sometimes include fantasy units. A great example is from Rome Total War where the Romans get battlefield ninjas for no apparent reason and the Egyptians are dressed like Egyptians from 1000BC instead of the Greek ruled state that it was. Basically the game gives you a good foundation to start from, but don't take anything too much to heart. The unit descriptions are normally pretty accurate and so are the little history blurbs. There are lots of mods made by ultra spergy history nerds that present things in a much more realistic light, to the point of not being fun because all the country names are in Latin and Greek and your armies need food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Scionix posted:Also, because I am a dork that grew up with ridiculous video games tropes, was wielding two swords, or a dagger and a sword, or two daggers, etc, ever a smart thing to do? You'd sometimes see that sort of thing in dueling, but generally there's not a lot that you can do with two melee weapons that you can't do with one. In open combat you want a shield, because it has a lot of utility, so it's almost always a better idea than dual-wielding. However, you would certainly see folks carrying multiple weapons to use in sequence - javelins, axes, knives, etc. - and they might be brought out if your shield breaks and you can't find a replacement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Speaking of which, what happens if you're a Spartan and your shield breaks? Not sure you're even allowed to drop it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Speaking of which, what happens if you're a Spartan and your shield breaks? Not sure you're even allowed to drop it Spartans used extremely strong and heavy duty shields called hoplons, which made out of 30 lbs of bronze and wood. They were great for phalanx warfare where mobility was not critical. They hardly ever broke, but if you did then presumably you'd move to the rear of the formation which used their spears a lot more than their shields.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
How long did the Knights in religous orders such as the Templars, Teutonic order and Hospitallers serve? How many were in for life and how many were just around for a couple of years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:How long did the Knights in religous orders such as the Templars, Teutonic order and Hospitallers serve? How many were in for life and how many were just around for a couple of years? I'd say the ones who were only around for a couple of years were...well, you know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I'd say the ones who were only around for a couple of years were...well, you know. So people only joined Christian military orders for life?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:So people only joined Christian military orders for life? My impression is that they took vows analogous to priestly or monastic vows, which would mean death is pretty much the only way out. But I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Typically they were for life, but I've read that in the early age of the orders (mostly Order of St. John) vows could be taken for a set amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Worth noting that, like monastic orders, there were almost certainly runaways, and the few examples that we do know of probably belie much larger numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:
During Robert Guiscard's invasions of Byzantium, the Venetian fleets pretty much had there way with the Normans. And when taken care of, the Byzantine navy was untouchable. The Venetians modeled their navy after that of Byzantium, they however had the money to always maintain it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 07:44
|
|
