|
Squalid posted: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. And before that, there was Dál Riata. Gaelic settlement in Scotland from Ireland wasn't really anything new-- landmasses that close will trade population even without any big migrations. I'm sorry, but when someone is talking about Pangea I'm unwilling to take as generous an interpretation of their question as you. The Scots didn't come from Ireland any more than the English came from Germany and Denmark. Anyway, his question was actually about the proto-celts and already got answered.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
yeah, that's exactly what makes you an insufferable pedant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Squalid posted:yeah, that's exactly what makes you an insufferable pedant. That's awesome bro. Back on topic: Other earlier studies of the middle ages came about through the Reformation; as the monasteries got broken up by Henry VIII, there were a lot of scholars, nobles, etc. frantically buying up the old manuscripts. Then, they'd hire somebody to catalog them, and in a fashion that cataloging was the start of medievalism, in a very limited way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Von Bek posted: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". He sounds perfect. I am particularly fond of knights from that period, and the text makes me think Hartmann von Aue would make a fabulous Grumpy Old Man. Thank you again, it was very thoughtful and I appreciate it.  My dissertation is going really well so far, it is examining the extent of religious tolerance in the Crusader states (all the other students I told this to immediately reply with a gasping “Oooooooo” like I chose something nightmarishly difficult). I am about two-thirds into it so far. And I forgot how I was going to end this paragraph... Thank you so much for your support. Wiggy Marie posted: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. One period I would love to see covered is the Great English Democracy Of About Eight Weeks. This is when Simon De Monfort defeated the king at the Battle of Lewis, creating for the first time a Parliament that accepted commoners. Another option is the campaigns of Georg von Frundsberg, a German knight of around 1500, sometimes called the Father of the Landsknecht. He defended Verona against numerous attacks from Venice, apparently knew Martin Luther and showed the good sense to retreat when facing disaster. For the record, I like soldiers who are willing to retreat and save lives. Unfortunately, Frundsberg’s story lacks a happy ending; he sold off his estate to finance the army he was leading for the Kaiser, discipline broke down, and he suffered a stroke, dying in grief after having been abandoned by his “beloved sons”, losing his estate, and one of his actual sons dying. Overall, a sad end to a magnificent man. My principle strategy would be to keep people clean, go for functional garments in the medieval period (landsknecht would be… less functional, I have shown you those pictures before), battles would make sure to feature organised formations rather than Braveheart-like clashes. I would also try to work the fechtbucher in for lots of cunning martial arts tricks, I would want at least one scene where the hook of a halberd is used, or where someone half-swords, and I would make sure the knights used throws and trips rather than strikes when unarmed. I get that the fighting would have to make some concessions to drama, What I think would make excellent story material is Henry VII, the first Henry Tudor. Everyone hears about Henry VIII in English history but I find his father far more compelling. Henry VII was of Welsh ancestry, which he alternately played up and down depending on how much it suited him at the moment, he was a capable soldier but always had a clear goal for every battle. I like him because he wasn’t afraid of the unglamorous stuff. Henry VII brought stability to the country, put the treasury in the best state it had been for ages, manipulated foreign affairs to reduce the danger to the English coast. And at times, Henry could be kind. A rebellion used a boy named Lambert Simnel as a figurehead. Eventually Henry defeated the rebellion, captured Simnel… then pardoned him and gave him a job in the royal household, since he recognised that Simnel was essentially a kid who had been used as a puppet by people Henry had already killed when crushing the rebellion. What I would really like to do is focus on the things he achieved that other monarchs overlooked. Rather than feud with France, Henry got them to pay him a pension that helped considerably towards securing his rule. When he defeated Simnel’s rebellion at Stoke Field, Henry had the larger army. And I think that deserves recognition as a military achievement, because he was able to assemble the army very quickly and effectively to counter the invasion force (the rebellion had a ton of Irish & German support). I would also love to try something with the Templars or Hospitallers. The main thing I would do with the Templars is bludgeon with a crowbar anyone who suggests using them as fanatical Muslim-haters (one of my favourite real-life stories of the Templars is them repeatedly throwing someone out of their church for trying to hassle a Muslim - the Muslim in question who wrote about it was Usamah Ibn Munqidh). 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 would say people were interested in modern history since medieval times. You get chroniclers such as William of Tyre and Fulcher of Chartres early on. Later on you get guys like Gottfried Christian Voigt and Voltaire in the 1700s, who you could arguably call historians, although to be honest a lot of the work from that period is at the root of everything we get wrong about history. For example, Voltaire was more or less the person who introduced the idea that the Arab world should hold a grudge over the Crusades, and Voigt created the myth of the “nine million women” burned at the stake. Voigt, in 1784, made the claim that nine million women had been burned at the stake as witches. What he based this on is astonishing. He found archives recording a period of 20-29 years with 40 executions, and he assumed that 40 executions in that period would make an average of 133 per century (despite the 40 period he checked being in a time and place of a witch panic). From there, he assumed that the entirety of Europe was undergoing a witch panic of the same intensity for 1100 years… despite witch hunting only really being a thing for maybe 250 years. So he took the number of executions from a single panic-stricken town in a time of trouble, and multiplied it by the entire population of Europe (I think the population of Europe from HIS time, far higher than Europe had for any of the 11 centuries he was talking about) for 858 000 per century. Anyway, this got used by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s blaming “Semitic Christianity” for the deaths of German women, and radical feminist groups in the 1990s, blaming all men. I will avoid getting drawn into that tangent, since it's flame-bait. I use the example to illustrate a point. There were certainly people trying to study history in the 1700s, they were just often terrible at it, and far too much work from that time ended up being used for hatemongering. Railtus fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Railtus posted: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. Aye, it's all dead Pythagorean. quote: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. I will bring up Pero Niño again, for he not only had access to some of the absolute best equipment available, but in two instances (the only two, if I recall correctly) in his biography which enumerate his equipment, he bears a shield. I feel the translation here is questionable, and I would like to get a look either at the original language or a Spanish translation when I can track it down. In any case, the first example was outside Pontevedra in 1397: El Victorial posted:His arms were a coat, a bassinet with gorget, according to the fashion of the time, leg pieces and a great tilting buckler which had been given him at Cordova as very fine, the which had belonged to the good knight Don Egas. The second comes in 1404, when Don Pero commanded a small fleet of galleys hunting for corsairs and raiding the North African coast. As the Castilians tried to take a galley in the port of Tunis, Pero boarded the enemy ship wearing "a cuirass, vambraces, a steel cap, a sword and a targe." Shields clearly still had their place even among wealthy combatants in the early 15th c. After this my knowledge trails off quite rapidly quote: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. While the majority certainly were to the upper body (the arms in particular, and this holds true for Wisby), it is worth mentioning that injuries to the leg were more numerous than injuries to the neck and torso. edit: I'm going off memory for this, so if someone can get to the book that would help! quote: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. No one-upmanship taken. I can believe that to a point, but I'd very much like to see what Capwell has to say about it. quote: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. Indeed. It could also have been a subconscious reaction, the way people duck their heads in a driving rain. I believe Froissart writes about people being suffocated by the press of men, as a result of a similarly instinctive bunching of the formation. Wiggy Marie posted: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. Given unlimited resources and time I would show Robert Bruce splitting Sir Henry de Bohun's head open from different angles, and play that on repeat for about an hour and a half at normal speed and in slow motion, occasionally superimposing the words 'gently caress ENGLAND' in big flashing letters. Ideally, I would be able to go back in time to record this. I would have it open a week before the referendum. Alternately, I think the Seventh Crusade, as covered in Jean de Joinville's Life of Saint Louis could be an entertaining watch, certainly if they get the violence right. (No, his nose should be HANGING OVER HIS LIP. That nose is not nearly severed enough!) Not that that's the most important thing. The humanity of the crusaders and Egyptians and the varying motivations along with the interplay of politics would be good. It's also a well-covered event, unlike say the 1117-1119 war between Louis VI and Henry I. I think the latter war would actually make for a better film or tv series because it could more easily avoid racist and colonialist overtones and the late 11th/early 12th century is the coolest time ever. I really like that war as well because it highlights how complex and weak rulership was at this time. This is something basically every medieval movie (except for El Cid with Charlton Heston) gets wrong, turning the king into a 19th century autocrat because that is the nearest touchstone most people have to kingship. I'd also try to stick to a fairly short period of time, which wars are good for. No more than three or four years, I think, because otherwise your pacing can get hosed up. TV shows can do more, of course, and I think The Tudors, for all its ridiculousness and pornography, actually paced itself very well. For a TV show I think Philip Augustus' and Louis VIII's excellent campaigns against John would make for wonderful watching. Looking a little earlier, the life of William Marshal would also be wonderful. The most recent Robin Hood film, for all of its horrible nationalism, had an great scene where William turned his back on King John and offered to let him strike the first blow, because he's just that hard. That was excellent. Related to this, what do you medieval folks think of Pillars of the Earth? I've only seen the TV show. To keep my opinion from contaminating the debate, I've put it below in spoilers. 
Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
I've never even heard of it, but I've certainly got an opinion already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
I never finished the book because it's not horribly well written, and the show made me like Ian McShane less. But, if you hate yourself, you can adapt the Braveheart Drinking Game (point out an inaccuracy and take a drink) and get completely poo poo-faced. Also, I can recommend the Braveheart Drinking Game very highly in general if you want to be a really smug drunk nerd for an evening. The costuming alone is enough to get you hammered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Related to this, what do you medieval folks think of Pillars of the Earth? I've only seen the TV show. I actually recently finished the book, and tried watching the show but never got into it. The book does a great job going into detail about medieval life. It explores a lot of dark themes as well (worst is how it goes into detail about a gruesome rape). If you're a fan of the Middle Ages I'd recommend it, but be prepared for some dark storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Related to this, what do you medieval folks think of Pillars of the Earth? I've only seen the TV show. It is one of my all time favorite books. I think I've read the thing half a dozen times cover to cover. I think it is one of the better examples out there of winding a really engaging and believable plot line within an historical context. The treatment/description of the Anarchy was just magnificent Follett also does a pretty amazing job painting a picture of some interesting medieval lives: monk, builder, trader, etc. The historical accuracy on the smaller stuff very meticulous too, outside of a couple of unimportant anachronisms (hops being a thing for beer is one I remember, irrelevant stuff like that). The detail he goes into for building is pretty amazing. Some of the characters (Aliena are VERY modern in their thinking also, but that's not really a complaint. Also as in all of Follett's books pubic hair is mentioned regularly. Personally I did not like the TV show much at all. It rather missed a couple of the major themes, and the ending for Waleran was just ridiculous. The book is far better, so don't let the TV show preclude you from reading the book. Also I just started listening to the "World Without End" audiobook. If you're needing to blow 40+ hours on an audiobook (as I do as I have a hideous commute) it doesn't get much better than Follett's stuff on audio, particularly because the guy who reads them (John Lee) is easily the best book reader on the planet. bewbies fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:*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. The jian is supposed to be really flexible, including some whipping techniques where the blade bends, right? Similar to some foil techniques in fencing. I can't find much on Chinese armor from this time period. A few descriptions of lamellar (which has been used by Chinese armies since forever) and scale armor, enhanced with plates over the shoulders. Some places say they didn't use more plate to allow flexibility for martial arts techniques. If that's really true, I wonder if combat had some allowance for more ritualized and duel based encounters. In formation combat, non-weapon techniques boil down to grappling for trips and shoves, right? None of the traditional Chinese martial arts make much sense on an organized battlefield. Somewhere on the Great Wall, there's a little museum showing some period weapons, one of which was a solid iron guandao (like glaive) listed as weighing 37kg. It certainly looked that heavy. That just blew my mind at the time as being way too heavy. It must have been ceremonial, right? Useless even for the strongest calvary guy to try to drag around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Wushu practitioners use "whippy" jian, but that's because it's pretty and they're basically doing dance at this point : a real jian should be about as flexible as a rapier or smallsword, so yeah, some, but not really. And lots of Chinese martial arts were relevant on the battlefield, but we just tend to think of "Chinese martial arts" as strike-based. The vast majority until very, very recently were mostly weapon focused, and then you have Shuai Jiao, "which is knocking people over and breaking arms while staying standing" the martial art, which is pretty drat good in armor. And I am unaware of a style that is entirely reliant on striking. I mean, like, Northern White Crane is about as hit-focused as I can think of off the top of my head, and it still does throws and joint locks. And no, that must be ceremonial or inflated. That's horribly impractical. Just think about how awful an 8 pound sledgehammer is to actually wield as a weapon and it's very obvious that something weighing 10 times that is out-right impossible. O, and I'm pretty drat sure they had chainmail, but I don't have a source handy. (  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
What were the heaviest handheld weapons ever used in warfare? I know there's a tendency to exaggerate weapon weights for various reasons, but I'm curious to know the real answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Oh, I just thought of something: when did taverns and inns start becoming a thing? Like with fancy names and everything? Can you give us a run-down on what drinking establishments were like throughout the Middle Ages and how they changed over the centuries?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Chamale posted:What were the heaviest handheld weapons ever used in warfare? I know there's a tendency to exaggerate weapon weights for various reasons, but I'm curious to know the real answer. Pikes, most likely. A 20' wooden pole with a steel spearhead would have considerable mass (I don't know how much, wikipedia says 8-10 kg?) although the way it was employed meant that agility wasn't particularly important to the functioning of the weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
In a pike formation, would the dudes in front also be carrying big long pikes or would they be carrying spears to more controllable stabbing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:In a pike formation, would the dudes in front also be carrying big long pikes or would they be carrying spears to more controllable stabbing? The pikemen tended to all carry the same length of pike. The point of having such long weapons was so that the enemy could be kept as far from the square as possible, and so that the ranks behind the front could get their weapons into action as well. It isn't necessary for the front rank to have a great deal of fine control because anything that gets past their spearheads will only go a short distance before they run into the second rank's, and then the third's. So they get several bites at the apple. It could also be a huge weakness. Say you give your first rank shorter pikes and consequently you can only stab things once they get within 12' of the square, and fight an enemy who has the first rank carrying the full-length pikes so that they can stab at 17'. That's five feet where your guys are walking forward into knives and can't stab back, meaning they'll start dying first without inflicting casualties in return and probably wind up losing in the end. Finally, there is also the issue that the guys in front are somewhat likely to be killed or wounded, and will have to be replaced by men from the backranks anyway, so giving everybody different lengths of weapons would be pointless. There was usually a contingent of soldiers equipped with weapons like halberds, the sword-and-buckler, or two-handed swords, who were supposed break up the enemy formation by shoving past the pikes and engaging at short range where their length was a liability, though I don't think this ever worked particularly well in practice, at least unless the squares were already in disorder from the push of pike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Finally, there is also the issue that the guys in front are somewhat likely to be killed or wounded, and will have to be replaced by men from the backranks anyway, so giving everybody different lengths of weapons would be pointless. Why did people not realize that the front ranks of a phalanx or pike square are a lovely place to be, for the thousands of years they were employed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
What front line assignment has ever been thought of as a good idea? They knew perfectly well, and got paid/forced/inspired to be there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Why did people not realize that the front ranks of a phalanx or pike square are a lovely place to be, for the thousands of years they were employed? Why did people not realize getting killed is SCARY and that it's a bad idea? What was up with these guys???
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:There was usually a contingent of soldiers equipped with weapons like halberds, the sword-and-buckler, or two-handed swords, who were supposed break up the enemy formation by shoving past the pikes and engaging at short range where their length was a liability, though I don't think this ever worked particularly well in practice, at least unless the squares were already in disorder from the push of pike. It also depends what kind of pike warfare we are talking about. Medieval/Renaissance pikemen just carried a long pike into battle since they were there mostly to protect musketmen from cavalry charges. There were not many guys with sword and buckler even on the battlefield after a certain point. Depending who was fighting and when, the pikemen might never even come close to enemy infantry. Obviously it did happen sometimes, but putting pikes against pikes was a meat grinder that no one really wanted to engage in since you would lose a whole lot of your expensive pikemen. From 1500 years before the pikemen fro switzerland were doing their thing, Alexander's pikemen were conquering a whole bunch of land. They carried a shield with them as well and were always going to see combat. The phalanx was the anvil for Alexander's cavalry to smash the enemy against. They carried shields and swords and would last significantly longer against an enemy pike phalanx as they had at least some kind of shield to protect themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbhANeJL_T4
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Why did people not realize that the front ranks of a phalanx or pike square are a lovely place to be, for the thousands of years they were employed? The dudes in classical times volunteered to be at the front since that is where the glory and honor was won. Also they got paid better then anyone else, either in booty or actual pay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The dudes in classical times volunteered to be at the front since that is where the glory and honor was won. Also they got paid better then anyone else, either in booty or actual pay. See, that's how you do it. I bet there was no shortage of volunteers for the ol' meat grinder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
I think some people overestimate how bad it would have been. Pike phalanxes rarely fought each other, and probably consisted of a bunch of dudes about spear length apart poking at each other's shields as they waited for the battles on the flanks to be decided. They might close if things went bad, but its hard to see a point where the general would order his phalanx to close with the enemy. Its far better to win the battle on the flanks and force a retreat then enter the meat grinder. You can still kill a whole bunch of the enemy as he runs away, without risking your own pikemen. Against other infantry that was not Roman Legions, the phalanx would still be a relatively safe position and it would take very, very suicidal troops to charge the pike wall. Even the Romans still tried not to outright attack a pike phalanx as it was just asking for a lot of dead Romans. I would imagine the same was mostly true for pike squares in the Renaissance. No one wants to just charge at them, so for a lot of battles it would relatively safe. That of course did not always happen, resulting in some rather bloody battles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Yeah, there are a lot of ancient Greek accounts of thousands of soldiers meeting on each side and maybe a hundred dying when it's all said and done. If neither side lost cohesion you could have some nearly bloodless stalemates. Even clear victories where the defeated side retreated in good order or had cavalry to cover their backs could be relatively harmless. I imagine things were similar when pike formations met.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:
Shields to my knowledge did not disappear completely until much later. I think there might have even been a resurgence of shields for some places in the 1500s, although that is a general impression I get rather than based on any specific source. I think of the rondeleros used by the Spanish, or the many gun-shields Henry VIII bought, it leads me to think shields were regaining some popularity. Not that Henry VIII should ever be used as an example of what sensible men were thinking. Another thought is civilian swashbucklers, named after the noise their shield made as they walked. Just doing a brief look for ordinances: Coutiliers from the mid 1400s have equipment of helmet, leg armour, haubergeon, jack or brigandine, dagger, sword, then either a demilance or voulge (1446) or light spear described as a javelin but seems not to be intended for throwing (1473), but no shield is mentioned. Charles the Rash of Burgandy issued a 1472 ordinance in which pikemen were required to have a targe, although I wonder whether I should interpret it as a buckler or something strapped to the arm without taking up the hand. A German ordinance I mentioned at the start of the thread (Duke Albrecht) had the guys with body armour of iron or jerkin, sword or knife, helmet, then a main weapon (pike, gun, crossbow etc), but it does not mention shields. There are a few suggestions that shields are unusual, for example cited here - http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_burg.html - and it mentions two-handed swords being used a secondary weapon, which was probably incompatible with shields. Overall, it seems like there were fewer demands for shield-bearing troops after 1400, although that does not stop individual soldiers from bringing their own. After all, I can see professional soldiers bringing more than the minimum amount of protective gear. My suspicion is different areas seemed to make different levels of shield-use. It is possible that as armies moved more towards pike-and-shot warfare, that it was the wealthy that retained the shield for longest. I know less about what individual nobles wore, but I hope you find that info helpful. I have never read Pillars of the Earth, or seen the TV show, sadly, so I cannot give a good answer. kimbo305 posted:Somewhere on the Great Wall, there's a little museum showing some period weapons, one of which was a solid iron guandao (like glaive) listed as weighing 37kg. It certainly looked that heavy. That just blew my mind at the time as being way too heavy. It must have been ceremonial, right? Useless even for the strongest calvary guy to try to drag around. Oh yes, 37 kg has to be ceremonial. To put it into context, it is nearly 1/3 of the weight of a fully armoured man using it. Xiahou Dun posted:O, and I'm pretty drat sure they had chainmail, but I don't have a source handy. "The Jesuits and the Koreans are at one in asserting that the Chinese army of counter-invasion was a thoroughly efficient force, and they are also in accord as regards its equipment…it was very strong in cavalry, all the horse-men being in iron mail ‘on which the best swords of Japan could made no impression.'" (James Murdoch, A History of Japan During the Century of Early Foreign Intercourse 1542-1651. Chronicle, Kobe Japan, 1903. p. 343). Shamelessly pinched off ARMA article on knight vs samurai. Chamale posted:What were the heaviest handheld weapons ever used in warfare? I know there's a tendency to exaggerate weapon weights for various reasons, but I'm curious to know the real answer. Heaviest handheld weapons tend to be those that blur the line between handheld weapon and portable artillery. Early muskets often required a forked rest to aim with, sometimes arquebuses used them too but it was not as necessary. Pikes seem like a good bet though. At the very least they were the most cumbersome. Halberds tend to weigh maybe 3-4 kg. If pikes were anywhere near 8 kg then that would make them far heavier than other weapons. Generally, 4 kg is large polearms and the biggest two-handed swords. Blue Star posted:Oh, I just thought of something: when did taverns and inns start becoming a thing? Like with fancy names and everything? Can you give us a run-down on what drinking establishments were like throughout the Middle Ages and how they changed over the centuries? Fair question, I had assumed that it would really have been a continuation of the inns and taverns around since the Romans, although that would not necessarily make them common. Pleasures and Pastimes in Medieval England by Compton Reeves. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998 – suggests the 12th and 13th centuries in England, becoming common by the 15th century. Considering that England had no shortage of alewives that would probably influence the importance of taverns, whether to make them unnecessary (because there is so much ale at home) or as suppliers. It seems the larger inns with signs were a feature of the 1300s onwards, pictures being convenient and preferable when literacy was limited. London had 300+ alehouses by 1304. There are some sources here - http://www.larsdatter.com/taverns.htm Abbeys and monasteries tended to be very generous with hospitality, so the demand for inns was reduced earlier on. Church-run shelters and hospices did the job of providing for travellers, and most monastic communities brewed ale. The amusing thing is researching this took me to the history of plays and theatre, and it seems most of the things that make us think of the pub was covered by earlier medieval churches. Drinking establishments seemed to be more middle class or respectable working class rather than the dirt poor peasants. They often worked with vinters (wine-merchants) rather than relying on cheap ale. In a way, the frequency of home-brewed ale was a form of quality control, because why go to the tavern if you already have ale just as good? In fact, the term tavern might have originally just meant visiting the neighbours. So imagine a house party just where you pay for drinks. Another essay I found is here, but I cannot speak with authority onto the reliability of it - http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/essays/alehouses.htm For me, the trend over time was that drinking establishments became more formalised or specialised over time, while early on it was more likely to be something run on the side rather than a specialised trade per se. You might be working in one craft and also have a few spare rooms to run an inn from. A problem with my sources, however, is that they are overwhelmingly English, and England was quite the unusual place in the medieval period. Florence had a guild of innkeepers listed in 1236, so other parts of Europe might have moved faster than England on this subject. Grand Prize Winner posted:In a pike formation, would the dudes in front also be carrying big long pikes or would they be carrying spears to more controllable stabbing? Pike formations had a mix of troops, including troops with other weapons such as halberds or two-handed swords. Those guys with other weapons were often at or near the front ranks. One of their functions was to hook or rake or otherwise disrupt the hedge of enemy pikes and open up gaps your side could exploit. I have seen woodcuts showing landsknecht officers using boar spears. Another important point is backup weapons; if the enemy gets past the first row of pikes then the front line can switch to short swords (Swiss degen, German katzbalgers etc.) EvanSchenck posted:The pikemen tended to all carry the same length of pike. The point of having such long weapons was so that the enemy could be kept as far from the square as possible, and so that the ranks behind the front could get their weapons into action as well. It isn't necessary for the front rank to have a great deal of fine control because anything that gets past their spearheads will only go a short distance before they run into the second rank's, and then the third's. So they get several bites at the apple. It could also be a huge weakness. Say you give your first rank shorter pikes and consequently you can only stab things once they get within 12' of the square, and fight an enemy who has the first rank carrying the full-length pikes so that they can stab at 17'. That's five feet where your guys are walking forward into knives and can't stab back, meaning they'll start dying first without inflicting casualties in return and probably wind up losing in the end. Finally, there is also the issue that the guys in front are somewhat likely to be killed or wounded, and will have to be replaced by men from the backranks anyway, so giving everybody different lengths of weapons would be pointless. I agree with most of this, although I *think* the Swiss tended to prefer shorter pikes than a lot of other armies, and still seemed to do very well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Sorry if this is a throwaway comment, but what do you mean by England being a unusual place in the medieval period? Just curious in what why they were unusual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Railtus posted:In fact, the term tavern might have originally just meant visiting the neighbours. No? http://etymonline.com/?term=tavern tavern (n.) late 13c., "wine shop," later "public house" (mid-15c.), from Old French taverne (mid-13c.) "shed made of boards, booth, stall," also "tavern, inn," from Latin taberna "shop, inn, tavern," originally "hut, shed," possibly by dissimilation from *traberna, from trabs (genitive trabis) "beam, timber." And thanks for the source on Chinese chainmail. I knew they had it, but couldn't remember a good source.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Heaviest handheld weapons tend to be those that blur the line between handheld weapon and portable artillery. Early muskets often required a forked rest to aim with, sometimes arquebuses used them too but it was not as necessary. The heaviest weapon I have ever carried was 12kg. And it was intended for use with a bipod. It was pretty annoying to even carry let alone use. Were those early muskets at the same level? Also, does anybody know when those forked rests evolved into bipods?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:How much did those actually weigh? I had been imagining them as about as heavy as modern rifles until I thought about it right now. I'm curous, as well. I once shot a black powder rifle that weighed around 10-15 pounds, but I and the person showing me how to use it were able to use it without a rest, so I'm wondering how much a musket would need to weigh to require one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:It also depends what kind of pike warfare we are talking about. Medieval/Renaissance pikemen just carried a long pike into battle since they were there mostly to protect musketmen from cavalry charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries Only later did musketeers come into being, and at first there were not many of them. Look at the proportion here:  quote:There were not many guys with sword and buckler even on the battlefield after a certain point. That's hardly relevant, since the role of the pikemen, when not attacking other pikemen, is to attack or fend off cavalry. quote:Depending who was fighting and when, the pikemen might never even come close to enemy infantry. Obviously it did happen sometimes, but putting pikes against pikes was a meat grinder that no one really wanted to engage in since you would lose a whole lot of your expensive pikemen. Edit: Also, pikemen are cheap as hell compared to cavalry, which is what they're replacing. WoodrowSkillson posted:I think some people overestimate how bad it would have been. Pike phalanxes rarely fought each other, and probably consisted of a bunch of dudes about spear length apart poking at each other's shields as they waited for the battles on the flanks to be decided.... I would imagine the same was mostly true for pike squares in the Renaissance. No one wants to just charge at them, so for a lot of battles it would relatively safe. That of course did not always happen, resulting in some rather bloody battles. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:How much did those actually weigh? I had been imagining them as about as heavy as modern rifles until I thought about it right now. Shooting sticks still exist, so they never really 'evolved' into bipods, but integral bipods on weapons would only be useful when things like general marksmanship training came in, so post-American Civil War, basically. But this is beyond the scope of the thread! HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:This flies in the face of just about every primary or secondary work I have read on pike combat. Seriously, who told you this? Yes, mercenary companies will sometimes refuse to fight or desert if they're not payed or if they're unhappy with the situation, but they don't balk at closing with the enemy when they do fight. This is why I typically loathe talking to reenactors about history. Many of them act as if they are authorities when they only know things through two sources. Either they have been told about 'how it really was' by the group guru, who has probably only read Oman (or Shelby Foote if they are ACW), or they have 'deduced' a lot of things about warfare through their LARPing. They fail to recognise they are playing a game, one with noticeable safety rules like "no killing people", rather than fighting a war. It's one of the few history things that can really make me spitting mad. (another is the death of William Rufus)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Shooting sticks still exist, so they never really 'evolved' into bipods, but integral bipods on weapons would only be useful when things like general marksmanship training came in, so post-American Civil War, basically. But this is beyond the scope of the thread! Bipods were used in SE Asia in the early modern era...I want to say 1600s or so. I don't know if they were integral or not, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Shooting sticks still exist, so they never really 'evolved' into bipods, but integral bipods on weapons would only be useful when things like general marksmanship training came in Also, rifled breech-loaded weapons that actually have a chance of hitting something with a single aimed shot and don't require the user to stand up after every shot to reload. A bipod would be totally useless on a smoothbore musket/arquebus, but the stick would help a lot with the part of the reloading process where you hold it roughly horizontal to dump powder into the flash pan or adjust the burning cord so it goes into the flash pan when you pull the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Gingerly poking at each other, not really. Bloody, oh yes. HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:This flies in the face of just about every primary or secondary work I have read on pike combat. Seriously, who told you this? Yes, mercenary companies will sometimes refuse to fight or desert if they're not payed or if they're unhappy with the situation, but they don't balk at closing with the enemy when they do fight. I have read multiple arguments between people far more educated then me about how exactly pikes fought each other, and how the "push of pikes" actually happened. I may have been misinformed through that. Your reply has inspired some more reading, and http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/Ecwr-Guidelines/Guidelines-pikefighting.html seems to be a rather comprehensive summary of how pike fighting would happen. What I am still confused about is whether both sides would charge headlong at one another, or would only one side do so, and only sometimes. The pike fencing done by the Landschnekts seems to imply both sides facing off at spear length, since in a full on melee there is no way there would be room to fence with pikes. The "bad war" of your image seems to be a rarity and not the standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Sorry if this is a throwaway comment, but what do you mean by England being a unusual place in the medieval period? Just curious in what why they were unusual. The law and culture of medieval England is generally not something that can be generalised to the rest of Europe. For example, the property rights of women in England were restricted by something called Coverture (a ‘covered woman’), in which her husband held the property rights for both of them and exercised them on her behalf. It would be very misleading to assume that all women everywhere in the medieval world suffered the same restrictions. In France, women had more financial independence, rather than being bound to their husbands the same way. The longbow never received the same popularity outside of England. France was a lot more cautious than England about arming the general population, at least before the Hundred Years War made it necessary. It is very easy to think the medieval period was a certain way and then discover it was only a very limited place and time. Xiahou Dun posted:No? Hence the might... I was not the most confident of that part. It was something that came up in my research for the question, but I did not know for sure either way. I imagine it could depend on your interpretation of hut/shed. tonberrytoby posted:How much did those actually weigh? I had been imagining them as about as heavy as modern rifles until I thought about it right now. I expect about the same. I have never come across reliable figures for medieval firearms, I did however find this - http://www.oocities.org/yosemite/campground/8551/firearms.html - which says muskets requiring rests were around 20 lbs (roughly 9 kg). I don't know about bipods, although the Russian bardiche was an interesting take on gun-rests. Jabarto posted:I'm curous, as well. I once shot a black powder rifle that weighed around 10-15 pounds, but I and the person showing me how to use it were able to use it without a rest, so I'm wondering how much a musket would need to weigh to require one. It depends how long the barrel is. A heavy gun with a 5 foot barrel would have some of that weight further away, and the leverage means you need more effort with a longer gun. Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is why I typically loathe talking to reenactors about history. Many of them act as if they are authorities when they only know things through two sources. Either they have been told about 'how it really was' by the group guru, who has probably only read Oman (or Shelby Foote if they are ACW), or they have 'deduced' a lot of things about warfare through their LARPing. They fail to recognise they are playing a game, one with noticeable safety rules like "no killing people", rather than fighting a war. It's one of the few history things that can really make me spitting mad. Just to say, I was once part of a re-enactment troupe, and studying historical swordsmanship was actually a disadvantage in that group due to all the rules. Essentially, the safety rules meant you must not do things likely to result in injury. The medieval masters of arms taught that if your techniques did not result in injury, you are doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Do you have a citation? That sounds like a really questionable etymology, hence why I double-checked. My casual googling isn't even finding anyone advancing this claim. I fully acknowledge not knowing as much about history as you, but I'm pretty okay at linguistics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is why I typically loathe talking to reenactors about history. Many of them act as if they are authorities when they only know things through two sources. Either they have been told about 'how it really was' by the group guru, who has probably only read Oman (or Shelby Foote if they are ACW), or they have 'deduced' a lot of things about warfare through their LARPing. They fail to recognise they are playing a game, one with noticeable safety rules like "no killing people", rather than fighting a war. It's one of the few history things that can really make me spitting mad. WoodrowSkillson posted:I have read multiple arguments between people far more educated then me about how exactly pikes fought each other, and how the "push of pikes" actually happened. quote:I may have been misinformed through that. Your reply has inspired some more reading, and http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/Ecwr-Guidelines/Guidelines-pikefighting.html seems to be a rather comprehensive summary of how pike fighting would happen. quote:The pike fencing done by the Landschnekts seems to imply both sides facing off at spear length, since in a full on melee there is no way there would be room to fence with pikes. quote:The "bad war" of your image seems to be a rarity and not the standard. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:But probably less educated than me. I'm not challenging you, I literally admitted I was wrong and tried to read up a bit more, you don't need to be a cock about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
How did a warrior fight effectively with teardrop shaped shields? How was it different from the older round shields and scutus-type shields? How did kite shields evolve into the later heater designs? What were the changes in fighting styles?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
I'm fairly certain a teardrop shield would be held with the teardrop pointing slightly backwards, not straight down towards the ground. This makes it similar in style to a round shield, with the addition of a bit extra to protect your thigh/leg. This is a rough approximation from what I have gathered, people more knowledgeable on military history might be able to explain it better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 19:45
|
|
