|
ganglysumbia posted:During Robert Guiscard's invasions of Byzantium, the Venetian fleets pretty much had there way with the Normans. I retract the 'and beyond' bit, then. I don't actually know much about the Norman-Byzantium thing, I'm afraid.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Anyone catch Vikings last night? I missed it but am curious how accurate it is in comparison to the period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Anyone catch Vikings last night? I watched it and really enjoyed it. I wish I knew more about the period and the culture. I will say they showed a boy receiving his first arm ring as a man, the episode featured a Thing, and there was reference to one of the characters having been a shield maiden. I also know, however, that earlier in the thread there was discussion on the show and there were gripes that they only featured Scandinavian Vikings as opposed to Danish, which as I understand were the most powerful group of people at the time who were considered Vikings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
It's not especially accurate but it's not completely made up either. The timeframe is correct for when the first Viking raids on England began, I believe it opens in 793, but overall you gotta remember that it's a show and not a documentary. Vikings didn't fight with ninja skills (or completely unarmored), none of them seemed to be using a shield which was a very important weapon for Viking combat, Shieldmaidens are a bit of a fantasy trope, etc. It is an entertaining show though, I like seeing someone's vision of what prompted the first Viking raids to the West, and even if it's inaccurate it's a fun story so far. Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:It's not especially accurate but it's not completely made up either. The timeframe is correct for when the first Viking raids on England began, I believe it opens in 793, but overall you gotta remember that it's a show and not a documentary. Vikings didn't fight with ninja skills (or completely unarmored), none of them seemed to be using a shield which was a very important weapon for Viking combat, Shieldmaidens are a bit of a fantasy trope, etc. That, and Gabriel Byrne is badass and perfect for the role of the earl.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I watched it and really enjoyed it. I wish I knew more about the period and the culture. I will say they showed a boy receiving his first arm ring as a man, the episode featured a Thing, and there was reference to one of the characters having been a shield maiden. I also know, however, that earlier in the thread there was discussion on the show and there were gripes that they only featured Scandinavian Vikings as opposed to Danish, which as I understand were the most powerful group of people at the time who were considered Vikings.  Even if you stick to the Scandinavian Peninsula (named after the cultural region, not the other way around), what's now the southern tip of Sweden was Danish territory at the time (and until about 1650). Actually, there are still Danes there, even if the Swedes did make a hearty effort at forcefully assimilating them. (I get what you mean, just wanted to point that out.  )But yeah, Denmark was pretty powerful in the period, and likely the catalyst for the creation of Sweden, as the Geats and the Swedes figured they were better off together than apart against us evil Danes. The population of Denmark apparently matched the population of England and Wales at the time, which is kind of crazy since their population is 10 times bigger than Denmark's nowadays. Of course Denmark was also significantly larger, but still.* Would certainly explain the desire to move out of Denmark and find somewhere else to live, not to mention the ability of the Danes to kick rear end in a way we haven't done since. *I'm guessing England's population was depressed at the time, because it certainly takes off at the end of the Viking Age, while the Danish one actually drops steadily between the 13th and the 17th century. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Denmark is part of Scandinavia. Didn't Alfred the Great have a large part in that? What with the fortification of towns, knowing the Danes would have a hard time taking a city or town that was fortified as such? I mean, couldn't we say that that Vikings as a whole simply gave up after a while?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Didn't Alfred the Great have a large part in that? What with the fortification of towns, knowing the Danes would have a hard time taking a city or town that was fortified as such? I mean, couldn't we say that that Vikings as a whole simply gave up after a while?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Huh? Not sure how this relates to my post? Not really dealing with why the English managed to eventually stop the Danish invaders, more why they were ever a serious threat to begin with. (Which if you assumed proportional populations to current ones would be a real feat.) I meant to reply to your last, as speculation as to why England's population swelled and Denmark's declined as time went on. What I meant was, the Saxons having driven off the Vikings for good may have had an impact on the population swells and declines of Britain and Denmark, respectively. Sorry if I wasn't more specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
I wouldn't say they drove off the vikings for good, quite the opposite actually considering many of the later Anglo-Saxon kings were the descendants of vikings. Cnut the Great was king of Denmark, Norway, and England. The son of one of his most important earls was the last king of England (Harold the Second), and obviously William the Conqueror was a Norman, who were also descendants of vikings. A lot of the decline in population of Scandinavia could possibly be because the vikings were TOO good at establishing footholds in new lands and many obviously chose to stay instead of returning home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:I wouldn't say they drove off the vikings for good, quite the opposite actually considering many of the later Anglo-Saxon kings were the descendants of vikings. Cnut the Great was king of Denmark, Norway, and England. The son of one of his most important earls was the last king of England (Harold the Second), and obviously William the Conqueror was a Norman, who were also descendants of vikings. A lot of the decline in population of Scandinavia could possibly be because the vikings were TOO good at establishing footholds in new lands and many obviously chose to stay instead of returning home. This is true, I am fairly sure Guthrum (Aethelstan) was also "king" or at least earl of, I think, East Anglia(?) after converting to Christianity as part of his treaty with Alfred after his defeat; I had forgotten about Cnut, though he seems to have been the most well-known of Viking kings in Britain. And to your last point, that makes sense, I had never thought of it that way; they probably got comfortable with where they were and never went back to Denmark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
What sort of naval combat was going on in the age of the longship? I don't even know of any northern European warships before the age of sail. The few battles I read about were transport ships full of archers or borders. Did naval battles actually play a large roll in northern European medieval wars? Or were they only carrying troops without really engaging on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Large, deep-hulled boats were better for the sea conditions found up north compared to Mediterranean-style galleys. A deep hull naturally lends itself to hauling people or cargo. I can't add much about early naval battles before cogs. The earliest major naval battle I know of is the Battle of Sluys in the fourteenth century between England and France.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:What sort of naval combat was going on in the age of the longship? Its mostly boarding actions, longships and galleys lend to that alot, i don't really know much but it seems the design remained fairly static since antiquity, galleys were literally the pinnacle of naval ships in that period, well until the Portugese and Spanish combined european/middle eastern ship designs to make more sea worthy, sail reliant ships this shifted alot of the manpower into more important functions instead of rowing for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
I'm really enjoying this thread. I haven't seen this shared yet. Wiktenauer is a collection of historical martial arts manuals. including scans of the orignal art work and translation. http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page I have been studying Historical European martial arts for about 3 years focusing on Fiore delli Liberi's The Flower of Battle. http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:What sort of naval combat was going on in the age of the longship? In the Anglo-Norman sphere there is only one large naval battle until the Barons' War of the early 13th century, and we know almost nothing about it. During Robert Curthose's attempt to usurp the Kingdom of England from his brother, William Rufus, Robert spent some £3000 on mercenaries to invade the country, but during their voyage across the channel they fought at sea with Rufus's forces and were almost completely destroyed. And that's about all we know. We also have details of the river war between Richard I and Philip II on the Seine, but these too are vague, and never amount to a major battle. After the loss of nearly all of the Angevin empire under John, naval conflict between the kingdoms of England and France became much more important. Once John dies, however, and Prince Louis, later Louis VIII, was forced to return to France, neither entered into a major war with the other until the HYW. Fizzil posted:Its mostly boarding actions, longships and galleys lend to that alot, i don't really know much but it seems the design remained fairly static since antiquity, galleys were literally the pinnacle of naval ships in that period, well until the Portugese and Spanish combined european/middle eastern ship designs to make more sea worthy, sail reliant ships this shifted alot of the manpower into more important functions instead of rowing for example. Galleys were by no means "the pinnacle" of ship design, in large part because there was no singular pinnacle. Galleys tended to fare much more poorly outside the relatively calm waters of the Mediterranean than their deep-hulled counterparts, and were, as I recall, not as fast when operating under sail alone. You are essentially correct about boarding actions, however. Boarding and missile exchange (bows and crossbows, not siege weapons) were the primary ways of combat in naval warfare until the proliferation of cannon. Even then, of course, boarding could still be a useful action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Galleys were by no means "the pinnacle" of ship design, in large part because there was no singular pinnacle. Galleys tended to fare much more poorly outside the relatively calm waters of the Mediterranean than their deep-hulled counterparts, and were, as I recall, not as fast when operating under sail alone. This is true. The shallow hulls and sail designs of galleys were much more maneuverable, but the huge square-sailed and deep-hulled Atlantic ships were more stable at sea and faster. Using both sail designs on the Atlantic ships made for a decent compromise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Great thread. I'm especially interested by the information about the aspects of what we consider "everyday" life such as their diet and what life would be like for a modern man who was transported back to that period. Earlier there was talk about grains being preserved in the form of beer. What other methods were used to store perishables? Google tells me that many castles had rooms in their depths where food was stored like in a root cellar, but is there any evidence of ice houses being used that early? It seems like all the materials needed were around, certainly some noble insulated a room with sawdust between the walls and brought in blocks of ice to keep meat, dairy, etc. from spoiling?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
There's evidence of ice pits and houses going back thousands of years. Greek and Roman merchants would import snow from mountainous regions, bury it in a pit, and use it to preserve food or produce ice. The Persians have been building sunken earthen domes that can keep imported ice cool in the desert summers since about the 5th century. I'm not sure when they were introduced to Europe but they were novel enough for Marco Polo to write about in the 13th century and were being built in Italy by the 1600s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc This is a pretty interesting video linked from the milhist thread. 2 things I haven't appreciated: 1) Viking roundshields weren't strapped to the forearm, but were instead held in the hand so it could rotate side to side. And shield-bashes seemed to be a crucial component, except that instead of the traditional frontal bash with the flat, it seemed that the shield-edge was used as the main offensive tool for to create openings the sword would exploit. Meanwhile, the flat edge was used to ward off your opponent's sword. 2) You really had to draw the sword towards you or push away from you to get a good cut into someone. We usually assume a good strong hit was instantly incapacitating, when it may actually be the case that you need a good cut AND a good pull in order to slice through the skin and fat into the muscles and tendons to reduce someone else's fighting capacity. What they don't seem to explore is the effect of armour, I'd imagine if you're fighting mail you want to emphasise your cut and spend less time on the draw in order to bruise and batter your opponent. My latter thoughts are shakier, I don't actually know how a sharp piece of metal interacts with a fleshy human.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
pulphero posted:I'm really enjoying this thread. I haven't seen this shared yet. Wiktenauer is a collection of historical martial arts manuals. including scans of the orignal art work and translation. Thank you for the Wiktenauer link! I've been studying some HEMA styles for a bit and hadn't heard of it. I've studied a bit of Fiore, as well as Achille Marozzo and a bit of destreza Spanish rapier. I live in LA, and the Getty occasionally puts their copy of Flower of Battle on display, I'm told. They have it online in incredibly high-res as well. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
First, my apologies about the delays. I am kind of burned out by the amount of research I am doing for my dissertation, so I kind of put other research on hold. I still have dissertation work to be doing, so I will still be delayed a bit. My apologies in advance. Thank you to everyone who kept the thread going. I will start with a question on relics that is overdue (the post is so far back in the thread I cannot add it to the quote list). Obdicut Good question. I have never seen any official work addressing that subject, although it seems plausible that it was just never kept track of to a sufficient degree to cause an issue. Once you know Church X has a finger-bone of a saint, you probably do not have much incentive to start tracking down the number of other churches which had other finger bones, you just want to go to that church for pilgrimage. Basically the research needed for a medieval person to notice, cross referencing various relics in what churches, would be very demanding and time consuming. I think honestly few people were willing to make the investment needed to do the research. Also it was not too common to claim to have the whole skull of a saint, if you just have a piece of it that counts and it avoids those problems in the first place. However, it was known that not all relics were genuine. For example, in the Canterbury Tales Chaucer describes the Pardoner as selling fake relics, so the concept was generally recognised. The church also made a point of forbidding the selling of relics on occasion, which is a sign it probably happened. So the short answer is they didn’t deal with it. :P I think the church could have made a wide census tracking down exactly what relics were where and which ones were genuine etc. But it seems no one wanted to do it. Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Any recommendations on books about The Knights Hospitaller? I like the Osprey books, even though they are not perfect from an academic standpoint they tend to be very accessible. Osprey Knight Hospitaller 1100-1306 & Knight Hospitaller 1306-1565. The second one covers more about their time in Rhodes & Malta etc. Scionix posted:are you familiar with the medieval, total war games? If so, are they historically sound, generally? Medieval Total War is a very fun game. I enjoy it a lot. What I would say is they did their research and then threw out the bits that got in the way of the game. They do take some liberties but it is one of the better-researched games out there. I admit my standard is influenced by how terrible the research behind most media is. The main flaw with Total War is it is about battles, while historically battles were the least popular way to fight. Also, the tax system is far more money-based than most medieval economies, but that is probably boring from a game perspective – they make no secret what the game priority is. I think I made an earlier post in this thread about two-weapon fighting. Generally two swords is bad, they tend to get in each other’s way as much as anything else, and using two swords means that if you are in a situation that puts a sword at a disadvantage, both your weapons are hindered instead of just one. Sword and dagger was popular, at least in civilian fighting. The shorter dagger did not get in the way as much, it was easier to use, and it was good up-close. This way if your enemy is too close to use your sword against effectively you can still gut him with the dagger. Two daggers are uncommon in the fight-books. Normally they depict just a dagger, with the other hand being used for grappling, but it is far more feasible than two swords. 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. Not a clue, really outside my area of knowledge. Sorry. 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? Military orders could do either. Full brethren were for life, while there were also Confreres or Halbbrudern who served fixed terms. The length of these terms could vary, they also had differences in their livery (the white surcoat of the Templars was permanent members only), and they were allowed to be married (although probably not allowed to marry if single at the time). The military orders wanted knights badly enough that they would accept people who could not commit to the full vows. In short, both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Thank you for the Wiktenauer link! I've been studying some HEMA styles for a bit and hadn't heard of it. Are you affiliated with the Kron guys at all? Here are the high rez copys online that I know of. http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=143459 and click zoom in. or here from Google http://www.googleartproject.com/artist/fiore-furlan-dei-liberi-da-premariacco/6826201/ My club has put together several how to videos on Italian rapier and Fiore. They are under play lists http://www.youtube.com/user/swordpals/videos?flow=grid&view=0 We also have a ton of sparring videos
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:2) You really had to draw the sword towards you or push away from you to get a good cut into someone. We usually assume a good strong hit was instantly incapacitating, when it may actually be the case that you need a good cut AND a good pull in order to slice through the skin and fat into the muscles and tendons to reduce someone else's fighting capacity. What they don't seem to explore is the effect of armour, I'd imagine if you're fighting mail you want to emphasise your cut and spend less time on the draw in order to bruise and batter your opponent. The draw-cut is actually of fairly limited use. poo poo, look at their own videos. You cannot extend your arms as much as they do when demonstrating the geometric advantage of cutting to the head and still draw your sword back to slice. I'm amazed that with all their focus on biomechanics they don't recognise this. Additionally, you simply can't slice a hard material like bone effectively. You are far better off translating all of the energy of your swing to a normal cutting stroke. That is not to say draw-cuts were not used. In situations where a full swing would not be usable, either due to proximity or obstruction, you could and should draw-cut if you can, but saying that you can't cut well without slicing is just plain wrong. Their overuse of the term 'biomechanics' also bugs me. That you have more leverage closer to the hilt of the sword is not biomechanics, it's just simple physics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Their overuse of the term 'biomechanics' also bugs me. That you have more leverage closer to the hilt of the sword is not biomechanics, it's just simple physics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Thanks for the criticisms. So yeah, draws if you can afford to against soft tissue, but it's worthless against armour. Better off slamming as hard as possible against joints or bones. Still, their interpretation of the fighting style seems to fit more with Viking single-combat, instead of a good-old-fashioned spear-and-shieldwall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc I found that extremely interesting as i had always envisaged the shield in a more passive light (no longer just an arrow catcher). 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Good question. I have never seen any official work addressing that subject, although it seems plausible that it was just never kept track of to a sufficient degree to cause an issue. Once you know Church X has a finger-bone of a saint, you probably do not have much incentive to start tracking down the number of other churches which had other finger bones, you just want to go to that church for pilgrimage. I imagine another aspect was that saints were revered to a much greater degree than in modern times, particularly when it came to things like observing of the saint's feast day, or just the number of saints the average person might know about. There were plenty of saints to go round, so churches weren't all competing over the same two dozen or so well known ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
What sort of advantages/disadvantages would a left-handed swordsman have had? Did they exist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Mitchnasty posted:What sort of advantages/disadvantages would a left-handed swordsman have had? Did they exist? A left-handed swordsman could not join a shield-wall or anything of that sort, because their equipment wasn't in the same place as their fellows. They would have an advantage in dueling though, because not many people would be used to fighting "backward". But there were few lefties in the European middle ages, because right-handedness was equated with godliness. Even in areas outside the Christian world, I'd expect that the rigidly formalized nature of period martial education would limit the number of lefty warriors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Given the context of the presentation, I think it's understandable why they just use a single term, so as to not confuse the crowd. The distinction between physics and biomechanics also seems unnecessary to me, in the context of fighters, as the fighter and his equipment should ideally be natural extensions of each other. Focusing on the term biomechanics makes that more obvious I feel, and brings home the point that you're sensing your opponent through your sword and shield, not just looking at him with your eyes. If you're going to use scientific terms you should aim for some kind of accuracy. Why not simply say 'physics', which is the more accessible term, over biomechanics? The sword and shield being 'natural extensions' of the fighter is mysticism, and the point I was making has nothing to do with feeling your opponent's movement through the sword, but the fact that the Forte is stronger than the Debole, which is just leverage. Phobophilia posted:Thanks for the criticisms. So yeah, draws if you can afford to against soft tissue, but it's worthless against armour. Better off slamming as hard as possible against joints or bones. Not 'if you can afford to', but rather if it is appropriate for the situation, which typically precludes a full-force swing. Roman legionaries would slice the hamstrings of their opponents, for example, which is not part of a full-force swing. The only evidence I've seen of a full-force swing draw-cut existing is from HEMA people that have trouble cutting some things and so reinterpret the information available. The conclusions people draw from experimentation are often questionable, simply because we are still divorced from the proper context, namely single combat with hand weapons. You are absolutely correct that their interpretations are not for the shield wall, nor should they be extended to the deeply curved kite shields seen in the Bayeux Tapestry, nor to deeply curved Roman scuta. Reasonable interpretations for use of curved shields have been made by Stephen Hand in SPADA 2, which is well worth picking up for that article alone. Their interpretation of Roman hilt design is also highly suspect, in large part because the nature of the scutum, being deeply curved, is contrary to their earlier contention that deeply curved shields were unsuitable for their method of combat. Scuta, however, were also centre-gripped, and their use to some degree required exposing the arm. It is clear that whatever similarities there were between the use of the scutum and gladius, their analysis is ill-founded. Again, you do not need to draw your blade back to cut through flesh. Look at all these Cold Steel videos. Look at them. They're horrible. But if you can hold back your laughter for a minute, look at what they are cutting and how they swing their swords. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04GNPaeaqqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiQUUlOwWcY
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
It's worth noting that it's likely that swords of the day were, or most blades for that matter, were not as razor sharp as we imagine them to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:A left-handed swordsman could not join a shield-wall or anything of that sort, because their equipment wasn't in the same place as their fellows. They would have an advantage in dueling though, because not many people would be used to fighting "backward". But there were few lefties in the European middle ages, because right-handedness was equated with godliness. Even in areas outside the Christian world, I'd expect that the rigidly formalized nature of period martial education would limit the number of lefty warriors. I've heard that left-handers were good for fighting up castle towers during a siege. Something about the combination of the spiral stair case and the fact that his weapon is on the left instead of the right is supposed to give an advantage..somehow. I've also heard that Alexander put a left-handed person at the corner of a phalanx. Phalanxes had a tendency to drift right as they moved forward, having a lefty on one side fixed that. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but that's a direction to look in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It's worth noting that it's likely that swords of the day were, or most blades for that matter, were not as razor sharp as we imagine them to be. How sharp do we imagine them to be? Though we have some swords with quite good surviving edges, they represent a limited sample. Still, Peter Johnsson notes at least one example that was still sharp enough to cut paper. Check out this thread: https://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25639 So there are at least some examples of swords being 'paper-cutting sharp' although perhaps not 'razor sharp', though the latter is a very hard term to pin down. Edit: Hey Railtus did you go to the R. L. Scott conference in Glasgow last year? If not you missed some good presentations from Syndey Anglo, Peter Johnsson and Matthew Strickland, as well as a really bad presentation from John Clements. Dierk Hagedorn also presented but I honestly cannot remember what it was about, just thinking it was decent. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It's worth noting that it's likely that swords of the day were, or most blades for that matter, were not as razor sharp as we imagine them to be. How so? Blades would be sharpened as much as the metal would allow. Why would they use duller blades intentionally?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Mitchnasty posted:What sort of advantages/disadvantages would a left-handed swordsman have had? Did they exist? Like a Southpaw boxing it would be unusual for the other fighter to have to deal with, although material directly addressing the subject is limited. Liechtenauer’s teachings mention that if you are left-handed you should strike from your left-side whenever possible so you do not get overwhelmed in the bind (when your swords meet). Jeu de la Hache, a French text on polearms, does have a separate section addressing left or right handers. Fiore mentions some techniques that work against left and right-handers. It seems like awareness of the concept is there, but the sources only do a limited amount of delving into it. On the other hand, most military features were built on the assumption of everyone being right-handed. The shield wall assumes your shield is going to cover the right side of the guy to your left, so throwing in a lefty who holds his shield in his right hand would leave a potential weak spot. In pike formations I have seen it suggested that the front rank charge their pikes at waist-height, the second rank at shoulder-height, and the third rank overhead and thrusting down. This works if everyone is using their pike from the same side. Buried alive posted:I've heard that left-handers were good for fighting up castle towers during a siege. Something about the combination of the spiral stair case and the fact that his weapon is on the left instead of the right is supposed to give an advantage..somehow. I've also heard that Alexander put a left-handed person at the corner of a phalanx. Phalanxes had a tendency to drift right as they moved forward, having a lefty on one side fixed that. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but that's a direction to look in. The idea is that tower staircases went up clockwise; meaning that on the way up the wall was on your right side, giving you less space to swing your sword. While the guy defending the tower had the wall to his left side, giving him more room to use his sword freely. Tower staircases were often narrow enough that both fighters were crowded, but if both were right-handed, the defender would have more room and be in a better position to thrust around the wall than the attacker would be. On the other hand, not all tower staircases went up clockwise. Rodrigo Diaz posted:If you're going to use scientific terms you should aim for some kind of accuracy. Why not simply say 'physics', which is the more accessible term, over biomechanics? The sword and shield being 'natural extensions' of the fighter is mysticism, and the point I was making has nothing to do with feeling your opponent's movement through the sword, but the fact that the Forte is stronger than the Debole, which is just leverage. I suspect that English was not their first language, which might have caused errors in their terminology. Rodrigo Diaz posted:Edit: Hey Railtus did you go to the R. L. Scott conference in Glasgow last year? If not you missed some good presentations from Syndey Anglo, Peter Johnsson and Matthew Strickland, as well as a really bad presentation from John Clements. Dierk Hagedorn also presented but I honestly cannot remember what it was about, just thinking it was decent. I didn't, sadly, but I'll see if there are any videos on it. Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
One of my highschool history teachers was a lefty, and I remember he said something about a military unit comprised entirely of left handed fighters, which was used to great effect due to their opponents being unaccustomed to attacks coming from the wrong side, but I don't know if it was true or if he made it up. And also I think it was ancient and not medieval.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Railtus posted:The idea is that tower staircases went up clockwise; meaning that on the way up the wall was on your right side, giving you less space to swing your sword. While the guy defending the tower had the wall to his left side, giving him more room to use his sword freely. Tower staircases were often narrow enough that both fighters were crowded, but if both were right-handed, the defender would have more room and be in a better position to thrust around the wall than the attacker would be. On the other hand, not all tower staircases went up clockwise. Yeah definitely. The right-handed defender will retreat up the steep clockwise-spiraling stairs, which means that when they are facing their attackers (down the stairs) their shield will be against the inner wall to their left, and their sword will be in the relatively open area on the outside of the spiral (to their right). Due to the spiral, their attacker will always be below them to their left. Conversely, the right-handed attacker coming up the stairs will always have the defender above them to their right - with the wall partially obstructing any movement of their sword (also on their right), and their shield not being supplemented by the inner wall. It's a real position of strength for the defender when everyone is right-handed. This is something that is fairly evident if you use a spiral staircase regularly, but they're fairly rare here in the US. Maybe this will help visualize it: 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:How so? Blades would be sharpened as much as the metal would allow. Why would they use duller blades intentionally? One reason given is that extremely sharp edges would be somewhat more brittle, and might make the half-sword grip safer (where you grasp the blade with one hand). There is one attack, called the mordhau or murder-stroke, where you grab the blade and use the handle as a warhammer. A less-sharp sword might be preferable if you are doing that a lot. However, I am not entirely convinced. These claims also tend to be very vague about how sharp the sword should be. Which I think is an important factor for this kind of argument. How sharp is too sharp? How sharp is sharp enough? In my opinion, swords needed to be sharp enough for a few things. Firstly, abschneiden, when you cut by pushing or pulling the edge across the target rather than striking it. This technique is taught in the fechtbucher, implying the swordsmen of the time at least expected the sword to do it. Second, harnischfechten, or armoured combat when you try to stab the gaps in plate armour. Most of those gaps have an arming coat underneath, which is made of sturdy cloth. My arming coat is strong enough to resist most of the knives in our kitchen easily enough (which probably need sharpening). However, to my knowledge sources on armoured combat do not consider the arming coat to be an effective barrier against a sharp sword. Extending that thought a little, harnischfechten is always portrayed as being against plate armour; you never see it used against a cloth gambeson. This is not conclusive proof, I know, but it points in the general direction. Third, fighting medieval underwear, a phrase perfect for taking out of context. Even someone unarmoured is probably wearing a linen undershirt and a wool tunic over the top. Even without armour, wearing multiple layers of cloth was the standard. In my opinion, if your sword is not sharp enough to cut through the regular clothing of the day, you are better off with another weapon. Yet swords were popular even if not necessarily common. Fourthly, and most obvious, it needs to be able to cut people. There were bodies from the Battle of Visby with both legs shorn off by a thin blade in a manner that suggests the bone was cut rather than broken through, and the angle of the cuts suggest that both legs were severed by a single blow. Overall, the evidence suggests that medieval people expected their swords to cut and cut well. Finally, one more thought to throw out, remember that swords varied a lot. An Oakeshott Type XVII could have fairly blunt edges, being made principally for half-swording and armoured combat, whereas a XIII was much more cutting oriented. However, as a generalisation, I would say swords cut through cloth or most leather pretty reliably. I have also heard that 20-30 degrees was a common edge bevel, but I do not have a source to back that up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Railtus posted:One reason given is that extremely sharp edges would be somewhat more brittle, and might make the half-sword grip safer (where you grasp the blade with one hand). There is one attack, called the mordhau or murder-stroke, where you grab the blade and use the handle as a warhammer. A less-sharp sword might be preferable if you are doing that a lot. I've seen videos of people demonstrating that a sword is sharp by cutting things and then half-swording that same sword barehanded with no damage to their hand. The way it was gripped means it isn't actually dangerous. If you were in a situation where you specifically wanted a dull sword so you could use it primarily as a hammer I imagine you would just use a hammer!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 20:19
|
|
