|
Frostwerks posted:Regarding PTSD throughout the ages, you got any interesting speculation about fey and fell fugue states? Is fugue even the right word? Psychiatry ain't my bag. I am not really familiar with fugue states, however, my tutor on the Dealing With Demons module (we have some great courses at Hope) tended to lean away from trying to assign a mental disorder to stuff like that. Fairy superstitions tended to vary from place to place, so speculations about trying to match the myth to the modern diagnosis is unlikely to be very reliable. 10 different people could read the same symptoms 10 different ways. Luigi Thirty posted:So did everyone in the Middle Ages have boobs on their shoulders? Only the lucky ones. Dr. Kyle Farnsworth posted:I'd like to know more about the Free Companies and other mercenary companies. Any suggested reading for them? Assume I know nothing except "Hey, that sounds neat". I can give some keywords, like Reislaufer (the Swiss pike/halberd mercenaries, who were terrifying), the Landsknecht (German mercenaries built off the Swiss tradition). Generally mercenaries and free companies were fairly late on, defined as free because they were not bound to a master or lord in the usual sense. Other sources of mercenaries were crossbowmen, typically from Genoa, and there was a strong tradition of mercenaries in the Italian states. At the Battle of Verneuil, there was extensive Lombard/Milanese cavalry with fabulous armour. Technically Reislaufer & Landsknecht were not free companies, as the Reislaufer were essentially hired out by their cantons and the Landsknecht were Imperial armies answerable to the Emperor (even given a special right to ignore laws on clothing, hence the ridiculous outfits). My usual recommendation for someone who knows nothing is an Osprey book, not perfect scholarship (Osprey varies in quality quite a bit) but very accessible reading. I mean accessible in the sense that they can be read by a layperson without any major barriers, although it is also accessible in the sense that most of their books have free pdfs floating somewhere online. Swiss At War. Landsknecht Soldier. Condottieri. MyArmoury website also does some feature articles on troops, including the Swiss mercenaries. Another keyword to throw out is Routiers, which were organised into groups called Routes. Which may (complete speculation here) just be like Bandits were in Bands. Anyway, the difference between a mercenary and a brigand (very satisfying word) was fairly vague, because large groups of armed men could charge protection money. In fact, if I ever write books on history, I would probably call one The Knight And The Gangster and explore parallels between feudalism and organised crime. Obdicut posted:I've read that during the Mongol invasion of the 'Russian' states, the Mongols made their arrows in such a way that the Russians couldn't use them after they'd been fired, whereas the Mongols could re-use the Russian arrows fired at them. One option is just how the heads were attached. There’s a video on the idea here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWCN7HId-b8 Generally, however, I seldom come across the issue of arrows being shot back. It could just be my experience of the texts, but it seems like something that did not become important all that often. It seems like the kind of thing that would only matter in archer vs archer (so the arrow needs to land next to someone with a bow), with the archers having time to collect arrows (which would mean dismounting if horse archers), and so on. Arglebargle III posted:Nice piece of fish has seen fit to criticize the swordsmanship on display in the Game of Thrones TV show. And so, Medieval History & Combat thread, what do you have to say about the fearsomely beweaponed combat therein? And most importantly -- should it be more like Ong Bak? You know, I never actually watched Game of Thrones, but having watched that scene it looks like absolutely terrible swordsmanship. Actually, I would recommend it for an example of what not to do. Ong Bak is interesting. It jumps from leaping-flashy nonsense to the occasional realistic and effective technique like a cut from the bind. Obdicut posted:I think that the particular Rus force they faced at that point was a "Europeanized" one, but you're right that they faced the Kikchick(sp?) and a bunch of other steppe tribes using very similar weapons. It's going to remain a puzzler; as you say, it's a weird detail to just suddenly make up, but it's also hard to figure out why it would happen, why it's not mentioned in another story of Mongol warfare, and why it would surprise the Rus in particular since they were used to fighting steppe nomads. Communications systems for European armies started off fairly limited, at least in East Europe, where the lack of them was one of Europe’s main disadvantages against the Mongols (by the way, East Europe actually did far better against the Mongols than people often assume, but that is another story). Banners and trumpets did get used; although it seemed to be more a case of sticking together than anything else (Banner signals where to go). Knights were organised into Banners. Later on with Landsknecht the banner-bearer was important. William the Conqueror at Hastings had to remove his helmet to show he was alive, so it seems like everyone relied on being able to personally see him. Arnold of Soissons posted:Dumb question, but the problem is that they're all huge, right? Cruciform hand-guards were just a drat good hand-guard. Christians also had S-shaped handguards and basket-hilts etc. One of the key things about the crossguard was you could use it aggressively, not just as a punching aid or a mordhau but in trapping, binding and restricting your opponent’s blade. Side rings were common on European swords as well, to cover the other angles, and grosse messers often had what looked like a nail sticking out of the side. One popular grip in European swordsmanship was thumbing the flat, which is difficult to describe exactly how it works, but the thumb-grip does make a lot of cuts (particularly with the second edge) much easier. African takoba were essentially cruciform, and in fact so similar to arming swords or Migration period swords that European explorers in the 1800s were determined to find a ‘lost tribe of whites’ in the area because they could not believe that Africans were able to produce such excellent craftsmanship by themselves. I wish there was far more information on African swords out there. Railtus fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Apr 27, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Railtus posted:(by the way, East Europe actually did far better against the Mongols than people often assume, but that is another story). I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind. The Rus and the Mongols are two of my favorite subjects. From what I've read, by the time the Mongols invaded the Rus lands, the latter had been divided into a half-dozen principalities who hated each other and were on the tail end of 200 years of decline and instablilty (noting that the Rus were never very stable to begin with).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
^^Also me, I love the Mongols (total Subotai fanboy) and I know... next to nothing about the Rus. Shame on me.Railtus posted:I am not really familiar with fugue states, Watch Breaking Bad  No but seriously, Fugue states (ICD-10 F44.1) are controversial, really rare and impossible to diagnose outside of probability post facto. From historical sources? No reason to even speculate.The early Tony Jaa movies are the best for this. The later stuff is way too flashy, but still pretty cool to watch. I don't mean to poo poo up the thread with my fanboyism, but I think his greatest work is these two scenes: One and two. Or maybe this one with the hilarious dubbing. Okay, I'll stop now. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Nice piece of fish has seen fit to criticize the swordsmanship on display in the Game of Thrones TV show. And so, Medieval History & Combat thread, what do you have to say about the fearsomely beweaponed combat therein? And most importantly -- should it be more like Ong Bak? People have already addressed this pretty well but I would add a few practical things about fight choreography in media. First, part of the problem is that the actors need to be able to perform the choreography. And not only must they perform it, but they have to do a series of rehearsals and then they might need multiple takes to get it right. For a film like Ong Bak the actors are chosen for their athletic abilities. Game of Thrones can't get away with this, because they have to find actors who are capable of doing a good job and who can to some extent approximate the descriptions of their characters as given in the books. There are also safety concerns, since the actors can't wear full protective gear so "going hard" would lead to injuries. This is bad enough in film, but with the way TV shows are produced shooting around an injury would be even more ruinous. Game of Thrones itself also probably presents an unusual problem in the size of the cast. Second, the audience has to be able to follow what is happening. If you check out some videos of combat sports like boxing, judo, MMA, whatever--which I would recommend just because they're fun to watch, although also because they're somewhat useful for thinking about stuff like this--you will often need the play-by-play commentary as well as the slow-motion instant replay just to keep track of what's going on. That's not something you can do with a TV show without ruining the effect of what's happening. If there was a medieval-style production with realistic combat there would be a lot of fights that lasted five seconds where two characters come at one another, something happens with their swords that is too quick to follow, and one of them falls down with his helmet cracked and is finished with a stab to the eye or something. This is more realistic but the audience is somewhat likely to find it unsatisfying. Third, audiences are used to the way sword fights are done on TV and in movies. There are just conventions to it. Doing it in a completely different way, even if technically accurate, is likely to cause confusion for most people. You might even get people arguing that the fights are terribly done because they don't look like Errol Flynn in the Adventures of Robin Hood. There are other excuses, I'm sure. If they were really committed to a realistic portrayal of historical martial arts I think it would be doable to come up with something that was audience-friendly, but most of the time the emphasis is on other issues and fight choreography brings up the rear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:There are other excuses, I'm sure. If they were really committed to a realistic portrayal of historical martial arts I think it would be doable to come up with something that was audience-friendly, but most of the time the emphasis is on other issues and fight choreography brings up the rear. This is the only reason I will accept that it will simply never be, because it's just not a priority. If the people in charge of making stuff don't give a poo poo about it, it doesn't matter what the fans think. They'll take what they are given and that's all she wrote. All that other stuff you wrote can be worked around, but there's no realistic way of getting around stage fighting conventions, tradition and risk-o-phobic producers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Great explanation Evan. I'd love to watch a film that was built from the ground-up to portray medieval fighting done correctly, but it sounds like it would certainly be more difficult to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Which may (complete speculation here) just be like Bandits were in Bands. It's from Vulgar Latin bandire, "to cast out" cf. "banish". Also, since we're already talking about Rus and Mongols, anyone have thoughts on Mongoliad? I thought it was at least pretty interesting and I liked how it got into a lot of the logistics and the actual meat of fighting. I also loved that it's the first work of fiction I've ever encountered that at least tried to be realistic about how linguistically diverse people were. (gently caress you, Timeline.) It also has a displaced alcoholic Korean gladiator named "Two Dogs loving", so it's not exactly serious scholarship. Edit. VVVV Bullshit. There were two handed jian. I had to learn a special form for them and everything. They end up being really different, but they existed. Xiahou Dun fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Well that's too bad to hear about Game of Thrones. The one fight scene was odd in that one of the characters was specifically trying not to injure or kill the other one. Game of Thrones did actually have a character using armor intelligently in a fight scene that really was over in like 10 seconds, so at least that's nice. It's the part where Jorah just lets the guy whang him in the side with a scimitar because his opponent is used to unarmored combat, then traps the blade with his arm and slices the guy in the face.Railtus posted:Cruciform hand-guards were just a drat good hand-guard. Chinese straight swords were using a cruciform style guard before anyone in that part of the world had even heard of Christianity. The guard was not as long as European ones but the Chinese straight sword (or jian 剑) was never a two-handed sword. The point is yes, evidence seems to agree that it's just a good form for a hand guard. If people have any questions about medieval militaries or combat in China I can try to answer them; I don't have a history degree but I do have a related degree that required taking a lot of Chinese history and Asian history in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Even the cross predates Christianity. It's a geometric shape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind. The Rus and the Mongols are two of my favorite subjects. Mostly this was in the context of debates about whether the Mongols would have conquered Europe in 1241-2 if not for the succession crisis back home. Mostly my opinion focuses on Hungary, rather than on Russia or Greece (those are kind of outside my area of knowledge). A warning in advance is that this is not something I have looked at in too much detail, it is kind of hard to find reliable information on. The Battle of Mohi could have gone either way from what I understand, it nearly did. Yuan Shi (The History of the Yuan Dynasty) allegedly says Batu Khan lost 30 of his personal bodyguard and one of his lieutenants (Bakatu) in the early stages of the battle. Apparently the Mongol force that just crossed the bridge was outnumbered, cramped by the bridge, in generally serious trouble until Subutai managed to strike the Hungarian flank (he had been delayed by building a bridge to cross the river). The point is the Hungarians came close to killing Batu Khan on the field, which presumably would have had a huge impact on the course of the battle. Subutai was the turning point at Mohi. The flank attack caused the Hungarian army to fall back to their camp, allowing Batu Khan time to regroup and just bombard the camp with fire weapons since the Hungarians had sacrificed the initiative. This essentially flooded the Hungarian camp with fire and smoke, causing them to flee in a disorganised mess, allowing the Mongols to mop up the survivors with few casualties. Anyway, after Mohi, the Mongols spent the following year more or less devastating the countryside, but generally the fortified towns and monasteries resisted. While I highly doubt the Hungarians could have held out indefinitely, and the Mongols would have eventually consolidated their rule, the point is the Hungarians did not just get steamrolled, even if they were losing. Another point is Hungary rose from the ashes very well. Bela IV worked on extensive military reforms, mostly bringing everything up-to-date (at 1240 Hungary had allowed the military to fall behind quite a lot, my guess is to make the lords easier to control). To give you an idea of how outdated the Hungarian army was – Pál Engel, Tamás Pálosfalvi, Andrew Ayton: The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526, I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, London, page 104 – “The bulk of the king's warriors continued to consist of castle warriors serving as light cavalry. Although they were unable to afford more than the traditional leather armour, the king tried to increase their number and modernise their equipment. From the 1240s onwards...” After the Mongol invasions, Hungary was still in fit enough shape to begin an extensive castle-building project and create a large number of well-equipped royal knights at the same time. These military reforms too worked too, according to Kosztolnyik, Z. J. (1996). Hungary in the Thirteenth Century. Because King Ladislaus IV was able to repel another Mongol invasion in 1284. The Realm of St Stephen also mentions the Hungarian victory in 1284, but does not give a source or any more detail on the subject. Not to say that Hungary could have won, other than just surviving until the Mongols could not continue their invasion (which is more or less what happened), but they probably put up far stronger opposition than the Mongols were used to. Xiahou Dun posted:It's from Vulgar Latin bandire, "to cast out" cf. "banish". Thanks. It was just a thought that occurred to me at the moment. The Mongoliad is constantly on the “things to get around to reading eventually” list. I think it’s from the same guy behind CLANG, so it might be something I would like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Well that's too bad to hear about Game of Thrones. The one fight scene was odd in that one of the characters was specifically trying not to injure or kill the other one. Game of Thrones did actually have a character using armor intelligently in a fight scene that really was over in like 10 seconds, so at least that's nice. It's the part where Jorah just lets the guy whang him in the side with a scimitar because his opponent is used to unarmored combat, then traps the blade with his arm and slices the guy in the face. I had totally forgotten about that scene. Yeah it actually holds up pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRYM6B7CTs8
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Generally for English you can always check out https://www.etymonline.com and it'll give you a pretty good break down of the etymology. Sadly, other languages are significantly more annoying and can even involve dead trees. And, yeah, it's the same dude. Neal Stephenson. I still have no idea how I feel about that book over all, but hell if I wasn't entertained. Sufficiently entertaining that I feel no regret about it being my one fiction book of the year. (Or well, I feel regret that grad school has murdered my ability to read fiction, but not that it was the book I happened to choose.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:I see what you mean about it not being the simplest thing possible, but it seems a flat cross guard must be easier to fabricate than a basket hilt or something. Like I said, the Abbasids and others used the cruciform hilt style. Maybe they should be basket-hilted or something, but it's not like the Schiavona was developed during a time of impiety, what with the Reformation going on. There's a myriad of complex reasons why weapon design evolves. Some of it is certainly cultural or religious, but a lot of it is not. Straight cross-guards were clearly adequate for a lot of people, since they appear on designs like the Persian Shamsir, the Indian Talwar, and the Turkish Kilij as well. Rabhadh posted:I have read that cruciform is so prevalent because it allows the user to hook one finger over the cross, giving you more control over the blade. Particularly because the sword was mainly drawn after the charge, when a knights hand could be slippery from either sweat or blood. Some people would certainly do this, but to treat it as universal, or even particularly common prior to the 15th century, is nonsense. There is very little iconographic evidence of such a practice, though what there is suggests it was more common in Rus' and the Islamic world than in the West. Still comparatively rare, of course. Having handled some complex-hilted 16th century swords, I could in one instance not even put my finger over the guard if I wanted to, because of the design of the hilt, and this was at a time when many swords accommodated such a technique. One of the most obvious issues with the technique prior to the 15th c. is a fairly simple one to point out: Mail mittens were extremely common from the mid-12th to early-14th centuries, and indeed I don't believe the Morgan Bible shows a hauberk without them. Mitten gauntlets, too, were very common and would also completely preclude such a technique.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I had totally forgotten about that scene. Yeah it actually holds up pretty well. Wow, yeah that's actually not so bad. What the hell. Although, that being a khopesh, I demand a leg hook  Arglebargle III posted:Chinese history and Asian history in general. Well... I'd love a recommendation on what you think is the best source of reading about the three kingdoms period, both for historical accuracy and entertainment value. Seems like such a huge thing I've missed out on, because I know even less than Jon Snow about it. VVV Thanks! Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Well... I'd love a recommendation on what you think is the best source of reading about the three kingdoms period, both for historical accuracy and entertainment value. Seems like such a huge thing I've missed out on, because I know even less than Jon Snow about it. Sadly there's a real dearth of English language material on periods of disunity in Chinese history. It's relatively easy to get books on the various dynasties, but times not covered by dynasties are a lot harder. The 15 volume Cambridge History of China is maddeningly still missing the Three Kingdoms period. If you're looking for something close with a military focus (and why wouldn't you if you are in this thread?) this may be the closest you can get. It starts just after the Three Kingdoms period and covers the extended disunity until China was reunited under the Sui dynasty three centuries later. It doesn't really make sense to treat the Three Kingdoms as its own period anyway, since it was only the first iteration of a long warring states period, but of course it has been immortalized as the Three Kingdoms for centuries. It also has a cool name that's a lot more memorable than the confusing succession of kingdoms, failed unifications and kingdoms masquerading as imperial dynasties that followed for the next 300 years. I know it's intimidating, but the source on the Three Kingdoms period is Romance of the Three Kingdoms. There are a number of translations and (thankfully) abridged versions. DON'T feel like you have to read the whole thing, it is a novel only in the loosest sense and has many stories about a vast number of characters. It's also a work of fiction so... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 11:06
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOYMQAre3qw thanks for mentioning SCA, their videos are pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Some people would certainly do this, but to treat it as universal, or even particularly common prior to the 15th century, is nonsense. There is very little iconographic evidence of such a practice, though what there is suggests it was more common in Rus' and the Islamic world than in the West. Still comparatively rare, of course. Having handled some complex-hilted 16th century swords, I could in one instance not even put my finger over the guard if I wanted to, because of the design of the hilt, and this was at a time when many swords accommodated such a technique.  so glad people like you post here to keep all us amateurs in check
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:People have already addressed this pretty well but I would add a few practical things about fight choreography in media. Coming from a theatre background, that tends to happen even with fistfighting. I can't speak for film, but stage fighting is an entirely different art than actual fighting. This is partly because the moment that the audience gets sold on isn't even the hit so much as it is the set-up. It's that moment when you bring your arm back and prep the swing that gets them primed. And as cool as those videos are, a world where no one parries in a 2-3-2-3-4-5-2 sequence is no world at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:People have already addressed this pretty well but I would add a few practical things about fight choreography in media. I'm certainly aware of the problems with fight choreography in media. It's just kind of weird to watch Game of Thrones' fight scenes because I've seen William Hobbs' previous work and it manages to be really entertaining to watch. As an example, the final fight scene from The Four Musketeers (1974) has several nods to realism (though of course much of it is flynning), particularly with respect to grabbing blades, parrying with a dagger and so on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uGy3LlNeI
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:And as cool as those videos are, a world where no one parries in a 2-3-2-3-4-5-2 sequence is no world at all. What? Seriously, what's this about now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Something people might enjoy. This was by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, called Dressing in Steel, for some information on armour. Part 1 is showing a short-ish demonstration of armour being made, and some of the tricks they used. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgzQiO9liNw Part 2 shows how the armour was put on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwRqJwXXcQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Mostly this was in the context of debates about whether the Mongols would have conquered Europe in 1241-2 if not for the succession crisis back home. Mostly my opinion focuses on Hungary, rather than on Russia or Greece (those are kind of outside my area of knowledge). A warning in advance is that this is not something I have looked at in too much detail, it is kind of hard to find reliable information on. Yeah in the 13th century European castles and siege technology were probably the most advanced in the world and in Hungary represented a huge barrier to Mongol conquest. In order to break the six year siege of Xiangyang in 1273 the Mongols imported European designs for counterweight trebuchets more sophisticated than the traction trebuchets existant in China at the time. Then again the siege of Xiangyang is one of the reasons I don't buy some of the Mongol revisionism that claims Mongols really didn't murder the Hungarians that bad. Xiangyang was a fortress besieged for years by 10s of thousands of troops, and while I couldn't find any sources going into detail on the invasion of Hungary in 1284, my guess is it was more about plunder than conquest, considering that the golden horde was also at war with the Il-Khanate in the 1280s and contemporaneous raids against Poland lacked siege trains. Really the result of the Hungarian campaign is very similar to other Mongol invasions of poor remote kingdoms like Burma, Java, and Serbia: Mongols show up, utterly destroy the defenders army, completely upend the social-political system, then leave to go kill some Chinese/Arab/other Mongols who actually have stuff worth taking. Maybe they come back and faff around until the locals bend a knee or bribe them away but you can tell their heart isn't in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Squalid posted:In order to break the six year siege of Xiangyang in 1273 What?  I was under the impression that sieges, I mean proper sieges usually didn't last longer than months at the longest. Wouldn't the defenders have starved? Wouldn't the continuous loss of manpower have crippled them rather soon-ish? Were there periods of calm where the city got resupplied or something? Is that the longest recorded siege? VVV Those are some lazy-rear end Ottomans. Well, now I guess we know why they call them Ottomans, because those lazy fucks didn't bother to get up from them to fight. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What? Twenty-one years seems to be the record.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What? A siege lasted as long as the defenders had food, until a relieving army arrived, or until the besieging army got tired of sitting around and left. This generally meant several months at the very least. Defenders were also a lot better off than you seem to think, with a supply of food and water the defending party had a significant advantage and could hold off many times their number. Once gunpowder was invented that changed though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Yeah, Candia was a mess. Neither side had naval supremacy, so the defenders could resupply at will, but then, so could the Ottomans. Although they may have been too lazy to storm the place, at least they had persistance. How many other empires would have just given up after 10 or 20 years?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What? It was the same situation as in the Siege of Candia, it was impossible to cut off supplies. On the northern border of the Song Dynasty sat the twin cities of Xiangyang and Fancheng, facing across the Han river, an upper tributary of the Yangtze. They were both massive fortresses with wide moats connected by a pontoon bridge and with a pre-siege population in the neighborhood of 200,000. Together the cities were surrounded with 5 km of wall. Further out from the cities were several smaller strongholds and patrolling the river were thousands of junks capable of both resupplying defenders and attacking besiegers at will. The cities were absolutely essential to the defense of the Chinese state. The Yangtze river system served as the primary transit system in the Song state, if their enemies could take control of this system the Song would be virtually defenseless. For this reason Kublai Khan focused his new campaign against the Song here in 1267. Recognizing these circumstances the cities were kept supplied with massive amounts of grain, enough to hold out for 10 years, and huge garrisons. Sources don't offer specific numbers, but one unsuccessful breakout from Xiangyang in 1270 involved 10,000 Song soldiers, to give some idea of scale. Breaking these defenses required unusual tactics. The first task was to cut off resupply along the Han river. While the Mongols repeatedly destroyed every land based attempt at relief they found horse archers profoundly unsuited for fighting junks. Instead they begin building fortifications of their own to control the river downstream from the cities. This were probably pretty serious forts in their own right, because it took the Mongols years to complete them. Next the the Great Khan commissioned a fleet of his own, ordering the construction of 5,000 ships in 1270 and training 70,000 marines. The last successful resupply of the cities occurs in 1272 when a naval force of 3,000 men was able to break through the Mongol lines, but was unable to break back out. Still while the cities are finally cut from supplies they hardly seem closer to surrender. The Mongols are equipped with primitive gunpowder bombs and tractional trebuchets which could lobb 50 kg (110 lb) projectiles 100 meters, but these proved ineffective against the massive walls of Xiangyang and Fancheng. Additionally the Song could return fire with their own trebuchets. What finally broke the deadlock was the arrival of a team of Muslim engineers from the Il-Khanate, supposedly from the city of Mosul in modern Iraq. These engineers brought with them designs for the newly developed counterweight trebuchets, already familiar to ambitious Kings across the Mediterranean basin. the older style of traction trebuchet relied on the muscle power of many men pulling to provide a counterweight for the projectile. They were markedly less powerful than the newer counterweight trebuchets, which just used really heavy weights, though simpler in design. The new trebuchets could fire 75 kg (165 lb) projectiles 500 meters or 300 kg (660 lb!) missiles a somewhat shorter distance. They weren't just firing rocks either, both the Chinese and Mongols employed " thunder crash bombs" during the siege whose explosions were reportedly powerful enough to be heard from 30 miles away. Against these weapons the Chinese defenses were completely inadequate. The walls of Fancheng, which had stood for six years against the Mongol onslaught, were reduced to rubble and the populous put to the sword while the defenders of Xiangyang watched helplessly across the Han. Realizing there was no hope of relief before his garrison suffered the same fate as those in Fancheng, Lu Wen-huan, the commander of Xiangyang, defected to the Mongols in 1273, finally ending the siege. Much of the Song defenses downstream, often garrisoned by Lu Wen-huan's subordinates, followed suite, and the the Song dynasty withered away over the next six years. The last Song Emperor drowned at the Battle of Yamen in 1279 alongside 100,000 members of his court, washed away in the Mongol tide. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
It should be noted that this was the much-reduced Southern Song, which had already lost the Yellow River Valley and Central China Plain to the invading Jurchen. The Jurchen set up yet another Jin Dynasty (there are so many) in northern China but they picked a terrible time to found a new empire as the Mongols were only 100 years behind them. The relative ease with which the Mongols conquered China, and thus some part of their successful campaigns elsewhere, can be attributed to their fortuitous timing in finding China divided and drained by decades of warfare between the Jin and Song. The Central China Plain is the heartland of Chinese civilization, and at the time it was still the population center and political center of the Empire. Although southward migration in times of trouble had been a recurring trend, the Song Dynasty saw the most massive transfer of people and resources south up until that point in Chinese history. The Song Dynasty really established the south as an inseparable part of Chinese civilization and politics. Unfortunately for the Song, they didn't really last long enough to benefit from this demographic shift as they were still really hurting from the loss of population, arable land, developed cities, and treasure from losing the north when the Mongols showed up and started their campaigns. Even worse the Jin dynasty folded almost immediately, leaving the huge population and resources of the north in Mongol hands. Chinese infantry from the north was critical to the Mongols' siege of Xiangyang. The role of warfare between the Jin and Song really can't be overstated in the Mongol invasion. This wasn't simply border friction; the Jin and Song both made major penetrations deep into each other's territory throughout the century between the fall of Kaifeng and the Mongols' arrival. The Song even recaptured Kaifeng at one point. The fighting was vicious and destabilizing to both states. You can see the enormous resources poured into warfare in the elaborate fortresses described above, which were certainly built as border forts in the war against the Jin, not the Mongols. Despite its losses, the Southern Song was a hugely wealthy dynasty in the midst of a technological and economic golden age when the Mongols showed up.* The Song was militarily weak in its first century but the army and navy both improved considerably over the war with the Jin. If this state had not been cut in half by the Jin invasion, not lost its capital, its densest population center, and its ancient line of northern fortifications, it may have been able to resist the Mongols for a long time.It may even have withstood them entirely in the south, given the amazing defensive terrain around the Yangtze River which has thwarted dozens of armies over the millennia. Who knows what the Mongol Conquests would have looked like then? *The Mongols ruined the party to a great extent; they were less enlightened than Kublai Khan would make you think. We have less extant documentation in Chinese from the Yuan dynasty than either the Song or the Ming; it seems they suppressed or destroyed a lot of writings. But what we do have suggests the Chinese were not very happy with their Mongol overlords. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Apr 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
How about that Rob Roy swordfight, eh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtPluUi0_U How much of this is Hollywood Flynnisms and how much is "realistic"? How about The Duellists? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhwIrONyEzg
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It should be noted that this was the much-reduced Southern Song, which had already lost the Yellow River Valley and Central China Plain to the invading Jurchen. The Jurchen set up yet another Jin Dynasty (there are so many) in northern China but they picked a terrible time to found a new empire as the Mongols were only 100 years behind them. The relative ease with which the Mongols conquered China, and thus some part of their successful campaigns elsewhere, can be attributed to their fortuitous timing in finding China divided and drained by decades of warfare between the Jin and Song. Basically, one band of Islamic engineers changed the fate of history? Stuff like this always reminds you how fickle history is, and how every little things builds on others in hugely complex ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:How about that Rob Roy swordfight, eh? I am unfamiliar with the context of the film, but the Rob Roy sword fight is actually very impressive. It started off quick and aggressive, and actually quite difficult to follow the strikes in the first exchange. That much is certainly realistic, especially for double-time weapons such as rapiers. At about 1:14 the backhand suggests there was definitely some flynning involved (with a single-time basket hilt broadsword it would be horribly exposed, with a double-time rapier like he was using it would be an ineffective strike). However, I am fine with the technique not being great because in real fights perfect technique is rare. That takes us up to about 1:20. :P Whatever the heck the guy was doing putting his sword behind his back at 1:25 feels like a Flynnism to me. While sometimes a hand might be kept behind your back to keep it out of harm’s way when fencing, but it leaves your body very exposed. Liam Neeson’s cut seemed a very strange one to use in those circumstances. Why cut low and reduce your reach? At about 1:35 unnecessarily wide swings. The exchange at 1:46 is good. It is not the way fights were supposed to go according to the fechtbucher, but they do not leave themselves open to obvious counters. At 2:00 the way the guy is stepping around and trying to move around Neeson’s guard is good. The parries seem a little over-large, but it looks like the other guy is supposed to be the better and quicker fighter, which is good for me. The rapier fighter is clearly using the reach and speed of his weapon to his advantage, he is not leaving himself vulnerable, and while he is not using many of the tricks described in the fight-books it makes sense in this context. Neeson’s larger sword would probably have an advantage in the bind, so for the rapier-fighter to stay out of the bind makes sound sense. For the record, I like the asymmetric weapons. At 2:24 it looks like the rapier guy is opening with an overhead strike, which would be a bad move with that particular sword, but I can accept it as a feint. Neeson makes a huge mistake, he seems to catch or otherwise restrict his opponent’s sword with his off-hand, then knocks it aside with his own sword rather than taking the opportunity to kill him right then. At 2:27, Neeson throws an overlarge, telegraphed blow with too much wind-up. And pays for it. The other guy dodges back and lashes a cut across him with the tip. It would be more realistic if the tip-slash was followed up with a stab, but again that was too likely to end the fight right there. So far I am really enjoying the scene. I am seeing flaws in the technique, but the flaws seem plausible and realistic, and help create the feeling that one fighter is more skilled than the other. We get to 2:50 and Neeson is definitely Flynning. He is striking at the sword rather than the man more than is necessary for clearing his blade, the spin at 2:56 was Flynning, but then he kind of loses his balance and is unable to press his attack further. Again, it shows the consequences of trying to use those Flynnisms in a real fight. At 3:31 there was a spinning slash, but he avoids the usual problems of Flynning. He did it quickly so his back was not exposed, he did it from far enough away not to be counterattacked, and he did it while his foe was tiring and unready. Overall, it seems more like a fighter improvising than Hollywood taking over swordsmanship. Neeson is making some broad ogre-ish swings, but it seems like a fighter making mistakes because he’s tired and hurt rather than Flynnism. I applaud the fight choreographers and the actors involved. By 4:00 it looks to me like the more skilled fighter is not trying to kill his opponent, but to make him submit and humiliate him. Very risky, and I would like to say people did not do that in real fights, but it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility. Grabbing the blade as we see at 5:30 was done against rapiers, it gets advised in some of the fightbooks, and is completely realistic in that scenario. Although arguably the other guy should have seen it coming. This also explains why the rapier-guy did not just impale him sooner. One problem rapiers had was that they could strike a fatal wound but the opponent would survive long enough to kill you as well, so rapier-dude could stab him and still get chopped to death while his sword was in the other guy’s body. I was so impressed I want to say thank you for showing me that scene. I will probably look for the film in the near future. The Duellists seems to be smallsword fencing, which I know less about. However, the overlarge movements are from the guy backing away nervously (clearly the less skilled fighter), while the confident one is using very economical movements. Their guard is good, they are both making sure they are not easy targets. One of the fighters panics, and you can actually see when his technique falls to pieces, and as soon as he overcommits to the attack he gets killed for it. Overall it is very realistic, assuming both fighters are erring on the side of defence (not unreasonable). Neither fight has perfect technique, but the bad technique is actually part of the story. The mistakes were realistic mistakes that are plausible during genuine fights. Someone clearly did their homework for those scenes and it shows. Small thing to add: the Rob Roy duel is very long for a swordfight, most would be over sooner. However, I would call it more realistic than a scene that perfectly matched the fightbooks. Railtus fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
I understand what flynning is in context, and I assume it comes from someone named Flynn, but can I get a precise explanation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Makrond posted:I'm certainly aware of the problems with fight choreography in media. It's just kind of weird to watch Game of Thrones' fight scenes because I've seen William Hobbs' previous work and it manages to be really entertaining to watch. Hobbs is great and does great work, but I believe this is the first time he's worked for TV. Since you're creating a much different product for TV than for film, especially in the respect of run time relative to budget, the production is going to be different. It has to be done cheaply and quickly, which in Hobbs case probably means that he can't get the one-on-one time training the actors and drilling the choreography with them to yield his best work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:I understand what flynning is in context, and I assume it comes from someone named Flynn, but can I get a precise explanation? Flynning is named after Errol Flynn who did lots of swashbuckling movies where sword-fights were essentially moving the swords in a half-circle up or down so that it looked vaguely like a parry. It would follow an up-down-up-down pattern, with both combatants trying to deliberately hit each other’s weapons with a clang sound, rather than looking like they were going for each other. The term expanded to cover unrealistic swordsmanship in general, such as spins (bad idea to expose your back to the enemy) and leaps (when in the air you can’t change direction). The kind of thing that looks dramatic but would get you killed very quickly. Star Wars in my opinion is a particular offender. Generally I use the term for lots of unnecessary spinning around or swinging the weapon. College of Combat brings up common misconceptions of the sword that are quite handy for showing the difference between Flynning and realistic fighting. Aiming for their sword – note I kind of disagree at the head/torso comment, in most HEMA the hands tend to get struck quite a bit (because normally they are the furthest out and thus most exposed). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCzrZ9optXw Pushing on swords. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVX1k_0fZU Edge-bashing or swinging when clearly out of range. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiTQBLWVG4w Basically Flynning is a vague term for general bad Hollywood swordfighting. It can work well, such as Princess Bride, the fight between the Man In Black & Inigo was Flynning, with the subtext that both guys actually liked each other and neither was fighting to kill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Railtus posted:It can work well, such as Princess Bride, the fight between the Man In Black & Inigo was Flynning, with the subtext that both guys actually liked each other and neither was fighting to kill. Bob Anderson, the guy who directed the sword fighting in the Princess Bride and in the LOTR movies (and a lot more), had a pretty funny quote attributed to him in one of the extended things from the LOTR discs. He was directing the stuntmen in a fight scene, and one of the guys pointed out where he could just grab the sword or punch the guy or something, and Bob just smiled and said something to the effect of "Come on now boys this is the movies!" On the topic of hollywood swordfighting a pretty cool documentary about it is called Reclaiming The Blade, and its narrated by John Rhys Davies and has some cool features and interviews and does talk about trying to make swordfighting in movies more realistic. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Flynning is named after Errol Flynn who did lots of swashbuckling movies where sword-fights were essentially moving the swords in a half-circle up or down so that it looked vaguely like a parry. It would follow an up-down-up-down pattern, with both combatants trying to deliberately hit each other’s weapons with a clang sound, rather than looking like they were going for each other. Thanks, I could picture exactly what you were talking about, but that connection didn't pop into my head at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
1) Rob Roy is a really, really good movie and you should watch it. Even the soundtrack is amazing. 2) You pretty much got all the characterization of the fight correctly. Not Liam Neeson (It's Tim Roth from Resevoir Dogs and Lie to Me) is an arrogant sadist for the most part, and all of his fights are him obviously loving around because he's so sure he's better than everyone else : that fight is actually the one where he fucks around the least because he wants to shame and humiliate Rob before killing him. What I'm saying is, I love that movie and it has the best swordfight ever. Edit : P.S. It's on Netflix. Although I forget how English Netflix works. Xiahou Dun fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
I think you mean Tim Roth from the movie version of Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Heads up: I will not be posting for the next 2 days. Very recently (Friday) there has been the death or Earl Silverman, founder of the MASH domestic violence shelter. I am not sure what I am going to do in respect for his memory, but I do not want to just carry on as normal the next few days. I will avoid dragging the thread off-topic by elaborating further, but just to warn you of the delay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
This is my favorite sword fight is from the Polish movie Deluge. Since most saber systems are a 2 time system it lends it's self more to of a theatrical style of fighting. http://youtu.be/rBTtq2Gzm6w?t=47s this has lead to my buying a lot a saber trainers trying to find something that would hold up to sparring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 19:52
|
|