|
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. As for mysticism, is it really mysticism to say that a warrior should develop a familiarity with his tools that makes the use of them second nature? That's always what I perceived the 'natural extension' of the fighter to mean, and that's something people do with all kinds of stuff. Railtus posted:I suspect that English was not their first language, which might have caused errors in their terminology.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
I imagine half-swording it would be even safer if you wore gloves or gauntlets of some kind, sharp sword or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
UberJew posted: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. Indeed, as long as you do not let the edge slide on your hand it is reasonably safe. For a few examples of those videos. First, with John Clements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqP1F36EMY Second, a much better example in my opinion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfb6g786Y8M I think the idea is that a duller edge is more forgiving of errors in technique when gripping the blade. Not my choice, certainly, but someone might prefer the extra security in case they get something wrong in a high-stress environment such as battle. For me, if you are not going to use the sword for cutting then maybe a sword is not the best choice. With the Type XVII swords specialised for armoured combat, I would find a slightly shorter pollaxe much more effective for the same jobs - it makes a better hammer than a mordhau, it has a spear to stab with, and if you need the fine point control of a longsword's balance then you can stab with the queue-spike on the butt of the staff. That said, the Type XVII was fairly popular in England from 1360-1420, so they maybe the knights who used them knew something I do not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any reason why a sword would have to be particularly sharp. You're not really slicing in any way that strength or angle won't make up for keenness. More like clubbing, which even if it doesn't get through the adversary's protective clothing is going to make an impact...with leather or cotton particularly, but even against metal armor (and against that, you're not getting through even with a razor edge). Or stabbing. Stabbing doesn't require an edge, just a point. Edit: V Yeah probably. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
I think people are being slightly silly and taking "swords were not comically sharp because that would make them brittle and you don't really need it after a certain point" which was the actual idea, to my understanding, and somehow going the other direction and thinking that a sword is functionally identical to a splitting maul. Yes, they were sharp. That's why they cut you. They just were not necessarily as sharp as they physically were capable of, often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Dirty Sanchez posted:Earlier there was talk about grains being preserved in the form of beer. What other methods were used to store perishables? There were a bunch of different ways that they preserved food, and pretty much all of them are still in widespread use today. - Salt, either solid or in a brine, was probably the most common. Salt fish was by far the most common protein in coastal areas, and everything imaginable was pickled or brined. I can't find the source now but I recall reading that salt consumption for certain groups during the period was even higher than our ridiculous levels today. To that end, a LOT of medieval cooking principles were designed to counterbalance the excess salt. - Smoking, particularly for fish. For some reason they didn't develop a great love of smoking meat. Plenty of salt was used here too. - Fermentation. Alcoholic beverages were the most common obviously, but they also fermented several kinds of vegetables (beans and of course cabbage being the most common) and plenty of cheese. - Confit. This was probably the most effective method (and easily the most delicious), but it was also the most expensive: fat cost many times what lean meat cost so this was only available to the wealthy. - Honey or sugar. Sugar was hideously expensive but honey was available in most parts of Europe, so preserving fruits in it was very common. Also regarding sword sharpness, how much of a factor was cost? I'm referencing the American Civil War, where nearly all swords made were shipped unsharpened as a cost saving measure, then subsequently (in large part) not sharpened by the soldiers they were issued to 1) because they were not used much and 2) because the regiments didn't want to foot the bill to sharpen them in the field. I'd imagine sharpening all of the edged weapons for a medieval army would be a huge logistical undertaking. bewbies fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'd imagine sharpening all of the edged weapons for a medieval army would be a huge logistical undertaking. When your sword is your primary weapon, keeping it sharp and oiled takes as high a priority as a modern soldier making sure his rifle is clean and that he is carrying sufficient ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Yeah, it doesn't sound complex enough that you need a Professional Sword Sharpener. Just teach your conscripts as part of the drill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm not seeing any reason why a sword would have to be particularly sharp. You're not really slicing in any way that strength or angle won't make up for keenness. More like clubbing, which even if it doesn't get through the adversary's protective clothing is going to make an impact...with leather or cotton particularly, but even against metal armor (and against that, you're not getting through even with a razor edge). Or stabbing. Stabbing doesn't require an edge, just a point. Then use a club, it would make far more sense. Very often you were cutting in a way that strength could not make up for. Abschneiden (slicing off) where you place the edge against the body of your opponent and push or pull the blade along their body. Cuts from the bind (when your swords have met and crossed) would often lack the momentum to compensate for a poor edge. Pressing of hands was a popular slicing technique. Johannes Liechtenauer taught there were principles of successful swordsmanship. These were the help of God, a healthy body and a good weapon, principles of offensive and defensive and of hard and soft, a list of basic techniques, he repeatedly mentions speed and trickery, of being able to read your opponent, footwork and agility. He never mentions strength, which is the kind of thing he would mention if you needed it to compensate for a dull blade or if you were going to inflict injury by clubbing. Fiore dei Liberi stated he would rather face three fights in armour than one fight without, because with sharp swords a single mistake could be fatal. Again, this is a strong sign that swords were expected to be sharp or at least to get through medieval underwear. When clubbing blows are suggested, they are invariably murder-strokes, holding the blade and using the handle to club with.  That this is suggested when you need to do impact damage suggests that clubbing with the blade was regarded as ineffective. Just as a final point to add, Sagas such as Heimskringla of the 13th century explicitly mention a king’s men being unable to kill their foes due to notched and blunted swords. When Skofnung was notched by an edge-on-edge blow they tried to whet the blade to get rid of the notch. Clearly the quality of a sword edge was regarded as important. bewbies posted:Also regarding sword sharpness, how much of a factor was cost? I'm referencing the American Civil War, where nearly all swords made were shipped unsharpened as a cost saving measure, then subsequently (in large part) not sharpened by the soldiers they were issued to 1) because they were not used much and 2) because the regiments didn't want to foot the bill to sharpen them in the field. I'd imagine sharpening all of the edged weapons for a medieval army would be a huge logistical undertaking. Cost has not been mentioned in my experience. However, medieval swords were typically associated with the professional warriors who were typically well-funded. It has never really occurred to me at all that it would be costly, since I assumed a whetstone would be fairly common. Certainly the feudal troops (knights and their household retainers) often had squires to sharpen their swords. It seemed to be something that the troops organised for themselves. Rather than having bulk swords shipped out to be sharpened for an army, you would have units called lances fournies (or sometimes gleves or just lances, depending on area) of 3-8 men, and they would typically include their own servant or squire who took care of those logistical details.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm not seeing any reason why a sword would have to be particularly sharp. You're not really slicing in any way that strength or angle won't make up for keenness. More like clubbing, which even if it doesn't get through the adversary's protective clothing is going to make an impact...with leather or cotton particularly, but even against metal armor (and against that, you're not getting through even with a razor edge). 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Never base your opinion on anything on the stuff you see in movies I'm not, I'm basing it on the multitude of times I've cut myself by being stupid. People were debating over the degree of sharpness. I'm saying razor sharp is unnecessary. Even abschneiden doesn't require that kind of edge, which as mentioned, will weaken a blade. I'm not saying you can get away with a flat edge. Edit: V Fair enough. Your post above lays it out pretty well. This isn't really my area, I'm much more familiar with Early Modern Era stuff, but find the medieval era interesting as hell so I mostly lurk in here. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm not, I'm basing it on the multitude of times I've cut myself by being stupid. People were debating over the degree of sharpness. I'm saying razor sharp is unnecessary. Even abschneiden doesn't require that kind of edge, which as mentioned, will weaken a blade. I'm not saying you can get away with a flat edge. Razor sharp is not necessary, but the fight-books are pretty clear that clubbing to make an impact through normal clothing rather than cutting was the wrong way to use a sword.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Then use a club, it would make far more sense. It's worth mentioning that a lot of these techniques were designed for unarmoured fighting. Abschneiden (what I called draw-cutting in earlier posts) is the most obvious example. It is within that context, I think, that Liechtenauer speaks of the nature of strength, as I think strength is an inarguable boon against armour, in wrestling with half or in normal strikes. For the value of strong sword blows against armored opponents, consider the following examples from different chronicles and different eras: Vie de Louis le Gros posted:He took up arms on the spot and headed there with a few companions by a hidden path. Seeing that some knights whom he had sent ahead had already struck Thomas [of Marle] and that he had fallen, Ralph [of Vermandois] spurred on his horse, charged forward, and struck him ardently with his sword. He delivered a deadly wound and, if no one had stopped him, he would have done it again. The Rhyme Chronicle of Livonia posted:[The Semgallians] advanced toward [the Vogt Goldingen] on the fields. He returned their charge with spirit. They did not abandon their attempt; their numbers were too large for him. The officer was quite worried about this. He had fifty men with him, and yet he attacked with such force that they retreated into their gates. His bravery took him too far. Often he rode into the gates far ahead of the Kur army. The Semgallians were aware of him often in their gates on that day. Finally a hero ran forward and hit the officer on his helmet so that he fell down in the dust. Yet a Brother was near him, who dismounted on the grass at the same time, and gave help to the officer. El Victorial posted:Thus did he go as far as the bridge which is near to the city [of Setenil]; then there came out a knight armed and on foot, who most boldly came up to him near enough to lay hands on his horse's reins. Pero Niño struck him such a blow on the top of the head that he split his headpiece over his skull, and the Moor fell to the ground dead, but with the blow Pero Niño nearly lost his sword. These instances are from the early-mid 12th c., mid-late 13th c. and early 15th c. respectively. For its own sake, let's just throw in some axes. Roman de Rou posted:The Normans were doing well when an Englishman came running up ... He held a very fine Norwegian axe, its blade more than a full foot in length. He was well armed in his own manner and big and strong and of a bold countenance... he came straight up to a Norman, who was armed and on horseback. He intended to strike him on the helmet with his axe of steel, but the blow slipped right past him. The axe, which was very sharp, skidded on to the front of the saddle-bows and sliced crossways through the horse's neck, so that the blade of the axe, which was heavy, went right into the ground; the horse fell forward on the ground along with its master. I know not whether he struck him any more blows, but the Normans who saw the blow gasped in amazement. The Bruce posted:And he, that in his sterapis stude, Edit: Just so's you know, I'm in large part posting so much stuff because I just wanted to fling out some primary source material. Suger and Barbour are particularly entertaining, though Wace and Gutierre Diaz de Gamez are also pleasantly evocative. quote:Cost has not been mentioned in my experience. However, medieval swords were typically associated with the professional warriors who were typically well-funded. It has never really occurred to me at all that it would be costly, since I assumed a whetstone would be fairly common. Certainly the feudal troops (knights and their household retainers) often had squires to sharpen their swords. It seemed to be something that the troops organised for themselves. This is an era when everybody and their dog carried a knife, and used it day-to-day. The knowledge and ability to at least get a crappy working edge on a blade would be nearly universal, especially when people not only used knives but also axes, scythes, sickles, etc. A majority of these people would be working in areas where having centralised sharpening would just be inefficient, given how low population density was. Sending out entirely blunt weapons to the field would also be a bad idea, not only because men would provide their own equipment in many instances but putting a half-decent edge on a properly blunt instrument is much, much more time consuming than sharpening a dull one when you don't have a grinding wheel available. Literally hours of work. I'd also point out that "lances" as a unit are a relatively late phenomenon, of approx. the 14th century. Instead in the 11th, 12th, and early 13th you had conrois, or squadrons, which unite around a single gonfanon, or banner. These small groups of knights would act as a cohesive unit in combat, and would often provide a certain number of foot-soldiers with them, but there was no requirement or expectation in the earlier parts of the era. In the Rule of the Templars, which is mid-late 12th c., there is a provision for each knight having a 'squire', who would fight as foot-soldiers, as well as additional squires as the master saw fit. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Mar 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It's worth mentioning that a lot of these techniques were designed for unarmoured fighting. Abschneiden (what I called draw-cutting in earlier posts) is the most obvious example. It is within that context, I think, that Liechtenauer speaks of the nature of strength, as I think strength is an inarguable boon against armour, in wrestling with half or in normal strikes. For the value of strong sword blows against armored opponents, consider the following examples from different chronicles and different eras: Excellent use of sources! With Vie de Louis le Gros it does not clearly say whether he struck armour or not, but those are beautiful contributions. Thank you! Liechtenauer’s comments on abschneiden or draw-cutting are definitely blossfechten (unarmoured combat for the benefit of other readers). When you get to harnischfechten (armoured combat) the game changes considerably. Also, by the time of the Liechtenauer tradition, transitional armour was becoming more common with the mail being reinforced, so bashing with heavy blows would be more difficult than previously. Unfortunately the earliest medieval swordsmanship manual I know of is the I.33, so we have less surviving evidence of how earlier swordsmanship was different. A friend of mine once tried bashing vs halfswording, to get very onesided results - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bdMfaymGlk Then again, earlier combat with shields might have made the use of wider, powerful blows against armour more feasible since you do not have to sacrifice as much defence for power. On the other hand, if you wanted to batter someone senseless, then a mace would be my first choice. An interesting thing is we do get the occasional literary reference to split helms but I have never seen it duplicated in reconstructive testing (which is probably one of the reasons you mentioned to be wary of reconstructive testing earlier). That said, I was very surprised to see a split helmet mentioned in a 15th century source, normally the split helmets tend to be mentioned earlier. Also, excellent point about how common knives were and the dispersal of population. That evidence is really helpful. I was more or less speculating but those details of everyday life is very good confirmation. By the way, do you know any good sources that describe conrois in more detail? I have occasionally heard them mentioned in passing as small teams of knights when reading up on the Normans, but I have never received much detail on them (most of my research has been later medieval, but it has irked me when I saw a book mention a conroi and then go on to say virtually nothing about them).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
If I walked up to a dude in plate armor and swung a baseball bat as hard as I could at his chest, what would the result be? Would he fell it enough to throw him off? Would it not budge and I'd eff up my wrists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
junidog posted:If I walked up to a dude in plate armor and swung a baseball bat as hard as I could at his chest, what would the result be? Would he fell it enough to throw him off? Would it not budge and I'd eff up my wrists? Later period armor, right in the center of the chest, I think you'd probably just break the bat or drop it depending on how strong your hands are. That's the strongest point of the armor, usually with a thick ridge running right where you're striking, and plenty of padding behind to absorb the energy. He might get pushed backwards a little bit but he'd otherwise be fine. If I remember right the average person can generate about 200J with something like a bat, and that is all blunt force generated with a tool that has some give in it. Depending on the thickness and quality of the steel it might be enough energy to put an arrow or pointed weapon through the armor, but not enough to do anything with something like a bat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
speaking of fighting in and out of armor here is the guy that leads our HEMA club in armor fighting me I just a gambison. A full powered. In other attempts we found a full powered sword swing doesn't even transfer that much power through the plate and his padded coat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAOut0P919c
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
junidog posted:If I walked up to a dude in plate armor and swung a baseball bat as hard as I could at his chest, what would the result be? Would he fell it enough to throw him off? Would it not budge and I'd eff up my wrists? You might knock him back a step, but otherwise it is unlikely to inflict any meaningful injury. While the weight distribution of a baseball bat is better for impact than a sword, there is also some give to the bat compared to the breastplate. Someone trying the same thing with a blunted sword - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q Or another try here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3fPHAAqiLI&t=1s Probably not the perfect simulation for your example, but the general trend is swinging hard blows to the chest does not do any serious harm. On the other hand, they do not seem to be complaining about hurting their wrists either. Overall it just seems like a waste of a powerful blow. A metal-reinforced bat would do better, but on the chest if it would still barely get his attention. The arms and legs have typically thinner armour (less weight makes them easier to move), and while the helmet is usually at least as thick as the breastplate the brain is a little more susceptible to the shockwaves from the blow. There is only so much a helmet can do about a concussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Phoenix Society? Are you guys in Phoenix? If so, then how warm is that armor? I'm kinda guessing it's 'holy poo poo' hot in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Phoenix Society? Are you guys in Phoenix? If so, then how warm is that armor? I'm kinda guessing it's 'holy poo poo' hot in there. We are in Phoenix AZ. Between takes Richard had to go in doors to let the metal of his armor cool down. In another month we will have to move in doors. Last May we had a guy pass out in just an arming coat from over heating. The counter balance is the awesome winters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Yeah you're probably going to want to aim for the joints and disable them that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
edit: gently caress, wrong thread
SlothfulCobra fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Excellent use of sources! With Vie de Louis le Gros it does not clearly say whether he struck armour or not, but those are beautiful contributions. Thank you! It is not explicit but I am fairly unshakeable in the belief that Thomas of Marle would have been wearing armour. Thomas was a fairly powerful noble, having, earlier in his life, controlled Crécy, Amiens, and Nouvion in addition to Marle and Coucy. It is during an attempt by Louis to besiege Coucy that this takes place. Thomas was waiting with a host to ambush the king and, in the words of Suger, 'seal its doom'. It is infeasible that he would not have been wearing armour for such an attack, and other circumstantial evidence points strongly toward it. The fact that Ralph considered it necessary to strike again after delivering a wound which broke Thomas's neck, plus the lack of detail for the wound (unusual for Suger) implies that it was done by percussive force rather than cutting. Additionally, any damage to the neck by a sharp blade against bare flesh or cloth would more likely have ended there and then, with blood. I wish I had Henry of Huntingdon on hand, because he describes Henry I of England getting hit so hard on the side of the head with a sword that it drove the mail into his flesh and made him bleed, but he also notes that it was Henry's personal bodyguard, not the king himself, who overcame his would-be killer. quote:Liechtenauer’s comments on abschneiden or draw-cutting are definitely blossfechten (unarmoured combat for the benefit of other readers). When you get to harnischfechten (armoured combat) the game changes considerably. Also, by the time of the Liechtenauer tradition, transitional armour was becoming more common with the mail being reinforced, so bashing with heavy blows would be more difficult than previously. Unfortunately the earliest medieval swordsmanship manual I know of is the I.33, so we have less surviving evidence of how earlier swordsmanship was different. I am unsure about this. I've begun to suspect, and Silver's comments on the advantages of different polearms seem to support, that fighting on the battlefield is quite different from fighting in a personal defence or duelling environment. Certainly, the prevalence of leg-cuts at Wisby and Towton, which you almost never see in fechtbuchs, suggest a far more chaotic environment with less hard and fast rules. Also, you can't strike a foot-soldier from horseback while half-swording. quote:On the other hand, if you wanted to batter someone senseless, then a mace would be my first choice. An interesting thing is we do get the occasional literary reference to split helms but I have never seen it duplicated in reconstructive testing (which is probably one of the reasons you mentioned to be wary of reconstructive testing earlier). That said, I was very surprised to see a split helmet mentioned in a 15th century source, normally the split helmets tend to be mentioned earlier. I think your choice of weapon depends on where you are and who you are fighting. Indeed, I was talking with Toby Capwell (curator of arms and armour at the Wallace Collection) a few months ago about armour, and he mentioned that German, Italian, and English armours have definite differences between them, and that a book he is putting together will elucidate on the English arms industry in particular. Split helms are very rare in what I've read, and I suspect are most often the consequence of repeated battering over the course of an engagement weakening the metal. That such a weakening could happen was certainly acknowledged. For example, Gutierre Diaz de Gamez brings up an instance from when he and Don Pero fought the English at Poole: El Victorial posted:The standard and he who bore it [that is, Diaz himself] were likewise riddled with arrows, and the standard bearer had as many round his body as a bull in the ring, but he was well shielded by his good armour, although this was already bent in several places. quote:By the way, do you know any good sources that describe conrois in more detail? I have occasionally heard them mentioned in passing as small teams of knights when reading up on the Normans, but I have never received much detail on them (most of my research has been later medieval, but it has irked me when I saw a book mention a conroi and then go on to say virtually nothing about them). Haha, nope! I don't think there are any, truth be told. They seem to have been fairly ad-hoc bodies. Even quite detailed works, like the Rule of the Templars, only gives hints as to the size of what the translator terms a 'squadron', and these do not seem to have been of a regulated number of knights. It's very frustrating for me as well. I can tell you some detail about how they operated, but that would be mostly cribbing from the Rule, and I cannot speak to how that compares with the conrois of secular knights. Railtus posted:Someone trying the same thing with a blunted sword - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q Oh hey, one of those guys (Daniel Jaquet, whose face you briefly see before he flips the visor down) was also at the R. L. Scott Conference, and that video all ties into his doctoral dissertation on how armour affects the wearer. He gave a presentation on it, and what was most interesting was how it actually extends certain ranges of motion, notably the ankles. One thing that Ralph Moffat (curator of European arms and armour at the Kelvingrove) has pointed out is that modern HEMA fighters are not exact analogues of their medieval/renaissance counterparts. Most importantly, knights would have grown up wearing armour regularly. In much the same way the muscle connections and bone structures of lifelong bowmen are different than most other humans, so too would it be for men who had worn armour from youth. The Black Prince, for example, received his first harness at 8, I believe. This is another reason why I'm leery of experimental archaeology. quote:A metal-reinforced bat would do better, but on the chest if it would still barely get his attention. The arms and legs have typically thinner armour (less weight makes them easier to move), and while the helmet is usually at least as thick as the breastplate the brain is a little more susceptible to the shockwaves from the blow. There is only so much a helmet can do about a concussion. You are partially correct here, and this actually brings up one of the big problem with off-the-stand repro armour, and some custom suits: any individual piece was not uniformly thick. The top of a bascinet would be much thicker than the sides, and so too would the front of a breastplate over the edges. Froissart, I believe, even mentions men-at-arms lowering their heads so the crown of the bascinet faces forward when advancing toward the English at Poitiers. This also helps to keep any cheeky splinters from taking out your eye. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It is not explicit but I am fairly unshakeable in the belief that Thomas of Marle would have been wearing armour. Thomas was a fairly powerful noble, having, earlier in his life, controlled Crécy, Amiens, and Nouvion in addition to Marle and Coucy. It is during an attempt by Louis to besiege Coucy that this takes place. Thomas was waiting with a host to ambush the king and, in the words of Suger, 'seal its doom'. It is infeasible that he would not have been wearing armour for such an attack, and other circumstantial evidence points strongly toward it. The fact that Ralph considered it necessary to strike again after delivering a wound which broke Thomas's neck, plus the lack of detail for the wound (unusual for Suger) implies that it was done by percussive force rather than cutting. Additionally, any damage to the neck by a sharp blade against bare flesh or cloth would more likely have ended there and then, with blood. First thing, an announcement; there will be a delay in my next post, dissertation work is taking over. I am going to elaborate more on the differences between personal defence or duelling as opposed to a battlefield and how that might have affected things, since I think it might be an interesting topic for readers. One of the major reasons the fechtbucher rarely suggests leg cuts is reach; if you cut for the lower body, the angle of your weapon does not reach as far forward. Assuming similar-length weapons that means your opponent can strike your head or shoulders from further away than you can strike his legs, so he can just step back and brain you, and if your weapon is low enough to aim for the legs you will struggle to defend your head, neck or shoulders. In formation, the opponent cannot step back as easily, which makes low strikes less risky. The other problem with attacking the legs, that your weapon is too low to adequately defend against strikes from above, could be mitigated with a shield, since your shield could defend high while you strike low. Apparently the Sagas mention cutting at the shins quite a bit, although that is all second-hand claims. Though Towton (1461) was after shields became less popular and Visby (1361) was when shields were starting to fall out of use, but I expect shields were still pretty common among the people without access to the top transitional armour of the time, since a guy with no shield and wearing only limited armour would be highly vulnerable to arrows. I know I mentioned earlier that Liechtenauer (1300s) was the age of transitional armour, but I think the rise of two-handed weapons did not occur equally for everyone at the same time. Another issue, chicken-and-the-egg related, applies to Visby. There was very little leg armour at Visby, but a fair amount of head and torso armour. That was probably a factor behind where the attacks were directed. If someone has body armour on their chest, a shield covering their left arm, possibly a helmet, and their right arm kept back, the leg might be the best target under those circumstances. A small thing though, I looked up Towton and got a different result – according to the Osprey book, Towton 1461: England’s Bloodiest Battle by Christopher Gravett, the wounds were overwhelmingly to the upper body. Not that Osprey books are necessarily foolproof, but it might be worth looking into. Pages 85-89, on this preview of Google books: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-UlMBQYccEMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false On the differences between German, Italian and English armour (and this is not one-upmanship I swear) I remember Dierk Hagedorn once mentioning in conversation that the differences were more in how the plates fitted together but the kind of things the wearer would not even notice. I am not sure they would influence what the best choice of weapon would be against each style of armour. That said, I will definitely keep an eye out for Tobias Capwell’s book, I like everything from him I have seen so far, and this seems like a very good subject for exploration. I would also like to amend what I said about my first choice to clobber someone with: a pollaxe would be my first choice. Also lowering their head so the crown of the bascinet faces forwards had an added bonus of presenting a more glancing shape for the arrows to skim off. Although the visor was also sloped, the breaths (air holes) probably meant the visor was far weaker than the rest of the helmet. Anyway, thanks for a ton of helpful information. I have to look up the Templar Rule anyway for my dissertation. I will be a little busy this week, but I look forward to being able to give more answers soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Might be beyond the scope of this thread a little bit, but is there any indication that half-swording was a thing that eastern (thinking mostly chinese and japanese) cultures recognized? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
pulphero posted:We are in Phoenix AZ. Between takes Richard had to go in doors to let the metal of his armor cool down. In another month we will have to move in doors. Last May we had a guy pass out in just an arming coat from over heating. The counter balance is the awesome winters. Have ave you attempted any reproductions of Crusader armor? If so, is it any more breathable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Might be beyond the scope of this thread a little bit, but is there any indication that half-swording was a thing that eastern (thinking mostly chinese and japanese) cultures recognized? If not, why not? (I’m still delayed, but I got an unexpected chance to post) A little bit. You see a half-swording like technique around 20 seconds in. According to friends with a background in kenjutsu you do place your hand on the blunt back of the sword sometimes, but I have not come across it much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEeW-CFyJVc I would not want to try fully gripping the katana blade; it feels more difficult to ‘pinch’ the blade like you might see here, probably because medieval swords seem to be wider-bladed than katana. You also have far less in the way of mordhau-related options, or the hooking and trapping with the crossguard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqP1F36EMY That said, my experience of katana is mostly limited to bickering with katana-plonkers. What’s a katana-plonker? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzbfuI0PMdA#t=1m30s Also for fun on that subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc Chinese sword use I know less about. There seems to be no reason why you could not use a jian that way if you really wanted. Also, I have no clue how my new avatar appeared, but thank you so much to anyone and everyone involved! It is awesome!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
I can speak a little bit about Chinese sword use. (Although I expect to be  ed like hell for it.) I did traditional Chinese martial arts for 7 years or so, and I did a decent amount of research, but I'm going to add the giant rider that, no, obviously, I can not speak about the use of an entire class of weapons through-out all of the history of an entire nation, obviously. I just went to a traditional school that emphasized weapons and I read a bunch of books.Basically, half-sword totally exists with a dao. But, since it's primarily, by design, a cutting sword, it ends up being less emphasized and instead you have similar techniques more based around using the other hand to force a push in a bind. Generally, this is because you screwed up, because if you get into a bind you'd prefer to use your off-hand to press their arm, free your sword and just cut them. But they do exist and I could track down some historical depictions if people really care. With a jian, they're actually much rarer* because that would be going against the entire point of the jian : if you ever touch the other person's sword you're doing it wrong, always, basta. You're always supposed to go for wrist-cuts and the like and avoid god drat parries at all costs, let alone binds. It's kind of like half-swording a side-sword. Yeah, I guess you could do it, but no one is going to talk about it because this is after several steps of fundamental breakdowns in what the weapon is designed for. For a better source that isn't Some Guy on the Internet, I recommend Lone Sword Against the Cold, Cold Sky by Adam Hsu. It's pretty much entirely traditional Chinese martial arts focused, but it has a really good chapter on weapons. His other stuff is also good because he manages to combine a knowledge of Chinese martial arts with occasionally doing research, something that rarely happens and loving everything is god drat rumor and it's awful and dumb. *Again, giant rider that I'm really talking about the jian vis a vis how it's "practiced" now where it assumes a lack of armor. There is the ancestor of the modern jian that was a much heavier double-edged straight-sword that I straight up do not feel comfortable talking about because I'm not as knowledgeable about it so don't take anything I say as necessarily applicable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have ave you attempted any reproductions of Crusader armor? If so, is it any more breathable? No I haven't, but I am going to be putting together my own suit in the next year and I have been thinking about what historical set would be the most climate appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Also, I have no clue how my new avatar appeared, but thank you so much to anyone and everyone involved! It is awesome! I'm glad you like the avatar! The picture is one of the few depictions of Hartmann von Aue, one of the great German poets of the Middle Ages, who wrote several Middle High German versions of the Arthurian epics. He was also a knight himself and may have been on a crusade or two (he wrote some crusading songs as well). The picture comes from Codex Manesse, an early fourteenth-century manuscript from Zurich which is also the biggest single surviving source of Minnesang (courtly love poetry). The text comes from Hartmann's Iwein, and means "in our days, such joy which they had in those times can never come again". I think your thread is really cool and am always happy to see people raising the profile of the Middle Ages. The avatar is kind of a personal sign of my appreciation of your thread  Good luck with your dissertation and the Master's! Von Bek fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't really medieval history. You must have a really weird and pedantic definition of medieval history given that Scotland didn't exist until the 10th century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 11:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You must have a really weird and pedantic definition of medieval history given that Scotland didn't exist until the 10th century. Complaining about pedantry in an A/T thread is kind of weird too, dude, so that's cool. I have no idea what you're talking about, either. Scotland existed. It didn't exist as a functional nation-state, but it existed as an actual territory, and what the guy was asking was about the migration of people's to and from those territories, which happened a long time before Medieval times. He was also talking about Pangea. Now, unless you're saying that Scotland rose out of the sea in the 10th century, which would be a zesty theory full of gumption, I have no clue what you're actually complaining about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Now, unless you're saying that Scotland rose out of the sea in the 10th century, which would be a zesty theory full of gumption, Pleeeeease let it be this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
It is my theory that the Scots built Scotland out of discarded ship hulls and piled up refuse until it was a true addition to the island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
This is to all of the medieval history studiers of the thread: if you were asked to dramatize (for film/TV/whatever) a particular event from the time period, which event would you choose and why? What kind of strategies would you use to depict the time period accurately? Anything specific you'd want to showcase? I'm curious about what y'all think matters most, so to speak, about the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Here's a weird question: for how long have people been interested in medieval history? Were there medieval historians back in the 1500s or 1600s? When did people start reconstructing Old English or Old French?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Here's a weird question: for how long have people been interested in medieval history? Were there medieval historians back in the 1500s or 1600s? When did people start reconstructing Old English or Old French? I really only have a vague sense of this, but I think it's true to say that "history" itself as an academic discipline began only fairly recently, in the 18th/19th century. Historians have been identified in periods before this obviously (Herodotus, Tacitus etc), though these people are probably closer to chroniclers than historians as we understand the term now. The idea of trying to reconstruct the past by working from source documents is a much newer idea. Leopold von Ranke is the big name here. Around his time, the study of the past began to move from antiquarianism (in the sense of amateur enthusiasm for old stuff) to a profession. Von Ranke claimed to aim to reconstruct the past "as it really was" (wie es eigentlich gewesen [ist]). It was around this time that a large number of medieval sources - chronicles, significant legal documents, major works of literature etc also began to be transcribed and edited into published versions. There was also a real enthusiasm for the Middle Ages in the 19th century as part of a more general interest in the "Gothic" past - though this was as much an aesthetic movement as an academic one. As an object of study, 19th century medievalism is a whole field of its own now. That's about all I can tell you, someone else will know more! 
Von Bek fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Here's a weird question: for how long have people been interested in medieval history? Were there medieval historians back in the 1500s or 1600s? When did people start reconstructing Old English or Old French? Hearne and Thomas Browne were really the first significant Britih 'antiquarians'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hearne_(antiquarian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Browne Following their correspondence to various people basically shows the building of the antiquarian societies that were the beginnings of medieval studies. The development of the university system made this into real scholarship. Of course, it was highly propagandistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Complaining about pedantry in an A/T thread is kind of weird too, dude, so that's cool. I'm complaining because you're talking out of your rear end. The guy was clearly talking about the theoretical migration of Gaels from Ireland into modern Scotland, a theory proposed to explain the replacement of Pictish by Scottish Gaelic between the 9th and 11th centuries. Simultaneous with the language shift the Pictish state of the Roman era evolves into the Medieval Scottish Kingdom. We know very little about Pictish or why people stopped speaking it, but until it disappears we don't usually talk about the Scottish people. Most historians don't think there was an actual invasion anymore, and explain the change through longterm peaceful contact between northern Ireland and western Scotland and then an internal shift in political power within the Pictish Kingdom towards a Gaelic faction. There isn't a whole lot of evidence available unfortunately, but whatever happened it wasn't very interesting since nobody bothered to record it. The guy was might have been a bit confused about the history of British people, but he was on the right track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:When did people start reconstructing Old English or Old French? They didn't have to ; they're both relatively well documented as far as the period goes, especially Old French. This is also more about linguistics than history. I can answer questions about medieval languages, but it might be better off if that moved over to the linguistics thread in SAL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:34
|
|