|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:For a second I thought Railtus had started posting again.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:What's wrong with them? Dead? Went back in time? Polack? Could be number of things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:
Just wanted to make a slight correction to this: the 1807 law banned British participation in the intercontinental slave trade and ended importation of slaves into British colonies. Slaves (mostly in British Caribbean holdings) weren't actually freed until 1833. In other words, the 1807 law prevented the sugar plantation owners of Trinidad and Jamaica from bringing in new slaves from Africa, but it wasn't until 1833 that they had to free the slaves that were already there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Hello again, it’s been a while. I’m going to cover this by general discussions rather than quoting individual posts. Page 22: pikemen, plate armour and so on: Pikes did not reduce the popularity of plate armour. If anything, they increased it. Pikemen, especially German landsknecht or Spanish tercio, were in the habit of wearing partial plate. If anything, I would say the decline of the knight was related to the development of munitions-grade armours such as the almain rivet; cheap mass-produced sets of plate armour for the common soldier. These often had limited coverage (you could not tailor mass-produced armour to an individual soldier) and were of lower quality, but they would still stop a sword or a spear just fine. Similarly, growing trends in militia and mercenary forces, particularly around urban centres, meant that the reliance on the knight was reduced. The huge thing to remember in my opinion is that a knight is a ridiculous amount of investment in one man – years upon years of training, an expensive war-horse, expensive armour and costly weaponry. Then there were logistics like squires to help put on the full armour, care for the horses and so on. With pike and shot formations, what you had was (at least in theory) lots of common soldiers each for a fraction of the price of a full knight. The knight still had better training and better equipment, but the gap between knights and common soldiers was smaller by 1450 than it was back in 1050 (although there were exceptions to the rule). So I would say it was all about being cost-effective and what was economically feasible. Not that knights were exactly less important, they were often hired as the ones training town militia, especially as artillery commanders (Osprey, German Medieval Armies 1300-1500). Fiore Dei Liberi himself commanded artillery at one stage. It was just that the knight’s value was less to do with personally being death on horseback. Vikings: More or less they were regular people the rest of the time. They were not necessarily unstoppable warriors, just in my opinion an effective protection racket. Strategic mobility as others have said is an important aspect. The question is not whether your army is better than theirs; the question is whether you can get your army in position to meet them. The Vikings could more or less attack anywhere on the coast, or sail up the rivers and attack a village inland. The Danegeld (protection money) was probably seen as cheaper than having all the forts and garrisons and defensive infrastructure needed to actually stop them. Another consideration is do you want every square inch of your country to be fortified? If you fund soldiers everywhere are you just arming and equipping the next rebellion against you? Not to deny that the Vikings were also effective at actual fighting, just that I think their success relied more on other factors. Ascetic Crow (love the avatar) & Knight-life: Knights obviously spent a lot of time in training, at least if stuff like Boucicaut’s writings are any indication. As others have mentioned, landed vs landless knights is important. The landed knights had estates to administer. The landless knights sought the sponsorship of those guys with estates. I came across a thread on something else that brought up the issue of landless knights. http://www.castleduncan.com/forum/index.php?/topic/175-query-on-a-garrison/ I hope that helps! Gladiators (page 23): One thing I heard that was that gladiators might have tended towards the fat, so that they could take a bloody and impressive-looking wound without anything vital being struck. This is just from a Wikipedia page, but I thought it might be something worth thinking about. Chivalry: There was not one code of Chivalry; the best description I have heard was that it was an ideal for knights to aspire to. When Jerusalem was taken in the First Crusade, I know at least one lord gave his banner to a group of people to say “These are under my protection. Leave them be.” Sadly this message seemed to be ignored by others. I do know Frankish knights in Jerusalem got praised by Muslims like Ibn Munqidh and Ibn Jubayr for their fairness, or at least had their fairness mentioned even if the writers were unwilling to acknowledged it as a virtue. One source I came across that may be worth looking at is this: http://www.idokan.pl/images/txt/tom...20Teachings.pdf I have not come across justifications for unchivalrous actions in the source material I am familiar with, however. It seems to be a rare thing to say “We know this is against our code but it’s ok because X.” It seems more likely they would pretend it was not against the code in the first place, which is probably easier if there’s no official code written down. Bludgeoning weapons and two-handed axes/maces: Bashing weapons were at least part of the way to go against armour, because you can still break a bone or daze a man without cutting through his plate armour. However, it is only part of the story because it is not emphasised too much in harnischfechten. I think the idea is high-impact weapons like war hammers or the pollaxe were great for slowing your opponent down, then you used the spiky bit to finish them off while they were stunned. Crushing the breastplate enough to incapacitate someone is certainly very difficult. I would not consider it a reliable tactic. That said, wearing armour with serious bruising does sound very uncomfortable. Dedicated two-handed axes and maces were fairly rare. They were however, reasonably common in other weapons. For example, a halberd is essentially a two-handed axe with a spear. A pollaxe is a two-handed axe, a two-handed hammer/mace, and a spear. A bill-hook is arguably a two-handed axe. You got a lot of combination weapons that included these elements. LankyIndjun and Dennis the Constitutional Peasant: I have heard that part of the joke in that scene was that anarcho-syndicalism was a system used by some villages in the early-medieval period. It is not something I have ever looked into enough to comment with any certainty on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
What are the various advantages of different weapon types? I mean, it sounds like the spear was the most common weapon used pretty much up until the advent of muskets, but why would an individual choose to wield a sword vs. an axe. vs. a mace in battle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
What do you consider to be most well executed or the most glamorous siege of a town/castle/fortification in the medieval time period ? (I personally like the battle of Jaffa but I know it wasn't the best)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:... why would an individual choose to wield a sword vs. an axe. vs. a mace in battle? Mostly boring reasons I'd guess. Availability - No point in getting an Axe if no one nearby knows how to make a good one\so rare its prohibitively expensive. Training - I'm assuming we're talking about Knights and other higher rank people here, but even though they would have trained in more than one type of weapon, if you have no training with weapon X you probably wont use it outside of "for funsies". Style\Meta - If everyone else uses X and Y chances are you will too. Not all items are popular or in fashion at the same time. Practical reasons - Less armour? Faster slashy\stabby weapons work better. More armour, heavy smashy weapons work better with a thin one for poking in the eye\gaps in the armour after your hammer broke their leg. On a horse? Something longer than can carry more force. Against poor people? Something that works against spears. Personal Choice - As always, you probably always get that one special snowflake you wants to use his knife-wretch and despite being useless is the Kings 4th cousin twice removed or something so you just have to find him a place near the back somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
I always got the impression that your average sword was a pretty all-purpose weapon. Maybe it didn't do anything great, but it did a lot of things pretty well. And that kind of versatility was valuable. Or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:I always got the impression that your average sword was a pretty all-purpose weapon. Maybe it didn't do anything great, but it did a lot of things pretty well. And that kind of versatility was valuable. Or something along those lines. From earlier in the thread, there was half swording to use a sword like a sort of spear, using the pommel like a mace, and for certain kinds of guard designs, reversing the grip to use as an axe. And of course there's just plain slashing against lighter armors. Good reason for a skilled warrior to use one, he could adapt to most situations with one weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
From what little research I've done on the subject, the sword seems like such a luxury weapon. Compared to the cost of a spear or even an axe, a quality sword seems like a huge expense for relatively little return.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:From what little research I've done on the subject, the sword seems like such a luxury weapon. Compared to the cost of a spear or even an axe, a quality sword seems like a huge expense for relatively little return. A sword is basically a long pointy piece of iron. It's quality is almost 100% dependent on the quality of the iron. But not only is the material relatively rare, it's usually full of impurities that must be removed. They didn't really have scientific metallurgy back then, so a lot of it was trial and error. Each individual smith had his own secret recipes that were closely guarded family secrets, but unless you had an electron microscope handy, you can't reliably assess the quality of your blade until you swung it at someone else's and see whose snapped first. A spear / axe / polearm on the other hand is a small pointy metal bit on a big piece of wood. Wood is easier to find, and while not as strong as iron, it's more predictable in the sense that everyone is familiar with it's strength qualities. The metal is just to make a more durable pointy edge, and isn't intended to be the load bearing component. In that respect, any poo poo piece of scrap iron would do just fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
I take it this is totally unrealistic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4-TIvKCNw
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Litmus Test posted:I take it this is totally unrealistic? I take it for safety reasons you're not allowed sharp weapons and can't just stab the other guy through the belly as he tries to play bumper cars?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Medieval combat is really just about running really fast and pushing dudes down.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Litmus Test posted:I take it this is totally unrealistic? I think that it does a pretty good job of portraying the potency of armor, as well as the intensity of the melee. The pushing and running is fairly reasonable - they just aren't finishing it up with a killing stroke once the guy is on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Litmus Test posted:I take it this is totally unrealistic? As silly as it looks, I would bet good money that a lot of melees may have looked something like that. Try to knock a guy on his rear end and kill him before someone knocks you on your rear end and kills you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Litmus Test posted:I take it this is totally unrealistic? If I had to guess I'd wager that trained soldiers didn't break formation in order to pinball around the battlefield like idiots where they'd get picked off by any jerk who stuck by his friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Novum posted:If I had to guess I'd wager that trained soldiers didn't break formation in order to pinball around the battlefield like idiots where they'd get picked off by any jerk who stuck by his friends. To be fair, it does look like most of the people who do that end up getting clocked in the head from behind with the edge of a shield by someone else right after. INTJ Mastermind posted:I take it for safety reasons you're not allowed sharp weapons and can't just stab the other guy through the belly as he tries to play bumper cars? Well the belly is armored too and I bet your hands are usually up to protect your head since it seems like a good hit to the gut or chest might hurt but a good running blow to the head will knock you down pretty good even with armor. Just guessing, though. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Novum posted:If I had to guess I'd wager that trained soldiers didn't break formation in order to pinball around the battlefield like idiots where they'd get picked off by any jerk who stuck by his friends. Apart from that, wrestling was part of the professional soldier's core curriculum, which I rather doubt is the case for the people in that video. Just running into a guy and shoving him in the chest doesn't work too well when he's had that kind of training.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Well I guess it depends on what kind of fight you're in. If you're in massed ranks, you probably won't want to barrel around like it's a bar fight, though using your fists and feet and shield-bashes probably can't hurt. If you raiding a village or sacking a town and get intercepted by some other armed men, then sure, if the fight devolves into a melee then this might happen. I can't help but imagine that any real veteran knight could kick any number of these guy's asses 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
I could kind of imagine something like that in a tourney, one of the later ones where they weren't trying to injure one another. I've heard that a lot of tourneys had 'every man for himself' bouts but can't be sure it's correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Well I guess it depends on what kind of fight you're in. If you're in massed ranks, you probably won't want to barrel around like it's a bar fight, though using your fists and feet and shield-bashes probably can't hurt. If you raiding a village or sacking a town and get intercepted by some other armed men, then sure, if the fight devolves into a melee then this might happen. Gear quality probably makes some difference. If you're in a full suit of good armor, you might be able to take more risks when facing massed ranks of poorly equipped dudes, owing to how hard it is to actually stop you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Well, more risks, but how many risks you'll take also depends on how outnumbered you are and how dedicated your opponents are to killing you versus keeping themselves alive. I mean, the classic way to kill someone in heavy armour is to grab their arms and legs and jam sharp objects into their armpits and groin and eyeslits and beneath their gorget. So ideally you don't want to get mobbed and instead want to rout them and make them vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Well, I should hope you're fighting people with a sense of self preservation. A mob more dedicated to killing you than staying alive is a terrible thing to face. The effectiveness of your initial rush on them might help though, it's one thing to pin down an armored guy, and quite another after he just eviscerated the guy ahead of you without visibly getting hurt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that it does a pretty good job of portraying the potency of armor, as well as the intensity of the melee. The pushing and running is fairly reasonable - they just aren't finishing it up with a killing stroke once the guy is on the ground. Actual battles didn't take place on smooth floors, either. It's a lot harder to sprint across churned-up turf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Actual battles didn't take place on smooth floors, either. It's a lot harder to sprint across churned-up turf. Yeah but probably also harder to keep your footing and you're more hosed if you fall down. I mean I'm sure it didn't look like that, but just smashing into someone with a shield and stabbing them on the floor sounds way easier than fencing with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:Yeah but probably also harder to keep your footing and you're more hosed if you fall down. I mean I'm sure it didn't look like that, but just smashing into someone with a shield and stabbing them on the floor sounds way easier than fencing with them. Sure, but if you trip and fall on the way to charging him, you're going to be the one stabbed in the armpit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
While its hardly a perfect simulation, stuff like that probably happened plenty, given the right circumstances. If there is an isolated knight causing trouble, you bowl him over from behind and mob him. Being the guy who gets isolated is a really dumb idea, but in a fight, it probably happens whether you want it to or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:While its hardly a perfect simulation, stuff like that probably happened plenty, given the right circumstances. If there is an isolated knight causing trouble, you bowl him over from behind and mob him. Being the guy who gets isolated is a really dumb idea, but in a fight, it probably happens whether you want it to or not. Well ideally you never want to walk alone into a village even if you're packing some flashy equipment. Always want someone watching your back, even if those others aren't kitted out as good as you are. Because I can't imagine you'd have very good situational awareness if you're in full plate. As for this kind of thing in the battlefield? How long would a melee typically last if discipline is still maintained and people are still capable of falling back into ordered ranks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:Yeah but probably also harder to keep your footing and you're more hosed if you fall down. I mean I'm sure it didn't look like that, but just smashing into someone with a shield and stabbing them on the floor sounds way easier than fencing with them. If it actually happened on a regular basis that people were just body checking eachother to the ground in tourneys, duels, and battles, we would expect to see that attested in documents. Which we don't. Again, when somebody is trained in wrestling and specifically on how not to get knocked down, it is really difficult to knock him over just by running into him and shoving his chest unless you're dramatically larger than him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
If a big strong guy hits another big strong guy really hard when he is not looking, he is going to fall down. See - The NFL, rugby, the NHL, etc. Battles were not meant to be free for alls where everyone broke rank and just fought it out, though that could happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:If a big strong guy hits another big strong guy really hard when he is not looking, he is going to fall down. See - The NFL, rugby, the NHL, etc. I hope you can appreciate that your argument is not very good. In part this is because you specify that the target of the tackle must be unaware of the person tackling him. An additional problem is that none of those three sports actually supports your argument. In football, at any given time most of the players on the field will be on the line, slamming into one another as hard as they can, while very seldom falling over. Additionally, in football as well as in rugby, most tackles are achieved by grabbing on to another player and dragging him to the ground, so that both players end up grounded--which is (A) not practical for somebody whose hands are full of weapons and (B) an end result that is just fine in football or rugby, but is rather undesirable in combat, for reasons that should be obvious. In your final example, hockey is played on ice skates, which tends to make it difficult for people to set their stance and maintain a base. quote:Battles were not meant to be free for alls where everyone broke rank and just fought it out, though that could happen. This doesn't address the question of why we do not see fechtbucher recommending flying tackles, or accounts of tourneys or battles where dudes body checking eachother played a major role. It probably happened commonly after battles, as the losing side gave up fighting and fled for their lives, but if it had any utility against an enemy who was actually resisting, we would expect to see it attested in the documents. Which, again, it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:If it actually happened on a regular basis that people were just body checking eachother to the ground in tourneys, duels, and battles, we would expect to see that attested in documents. Which we don't. Again, when somebody is trained in wrestling and specifically on how not to get knocked down, it is really difficult to knock him over just by running into him and shoving his chest unless you're dramatically larger than him. People who train in real martial arts learn how to fall well, not how to avoid it in the first place. Wrestling teaches that sort of thing because it's a controlled duel, without equipment, and "falling to the ground" is a technically specific thing that loses you points. No amount of wrestling training is going to keep you on your feet when you get surprise body-checked by 300 pounds of armored knight, nor when you're being pushed back by four ranks of spearmen. As for historicity, remember that we're looking at a small subset of medieval warfare. The vast majority of medieval combatants were poorly armed peasant levies that couldn't defend themselves well against an armored knight in the first place. Combat would start in organized ranks and then devolve into a general melee as time went on. And the medieval documents are pretty clear that wrestling while in armor happened all the time, particularly when knights were facing other knights en melee. EvanSchenck posted:This doesn't address the question of why we do not see fechtbucher recommending flying tackles, or accounts of tourneys or battles where dudes body checking eachother played a major role. It probably happened commonly after battles, as the losing side gave up fighting and fled for their lives, but if it had any utility against an enemy who was actually resisting, we would expect to see it attested in the documents. Which, again, it isn't. You may be looking at the wrong material. The Fechtbucher focuses primarily on unarmored combat, but it does speak somewhat about fighting while in plate armor, or Harnischfechten. It makes it clear that different techniques are involved, and that most combat was concluded with a wrestling maneuver that made the opponent vulnerable. Body-checking a distracted enemy might not be very sporting or elegant, but it is certainly effective. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:In your final example, hockey is played on ice skates, which tends to make it difficult for people to set their stance and maintain a base. It's actually not as complicated as it looks, maintaining a strong base is hockey 101. What's wrong with that example is the sheer speed that these guys hit each other at. I don't think a knight in full armor is going to be able to match the momentum and force of a hockey player going up to 30 mph. Even in hockey you tend to see that if the guy is set to take a hit, he's probably going to shrug it off or at worst get knocked slightly off balance. I'd imagine the same was true for a professional soldier who's been trained to take hits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:People who train in real martial arts learn how to fall well, not how to avoid it in the first place. Wrestling teaches that sort of thing because it's a controlled duel, without equipment, and "falling to the ground" is a technically specific thing that loses you points. This is wrong. The only martial arts that do not train takedown defense are sporting forms whose rules specifically ban grappling, such as boxing. Martial arts based in grappling or with a mix of striking and grappling often begin by teaching breakfalls, to prevent novices from injuring themselves in training, but takedown defense is a critical part of all of them. The point score assigned to takedowns in wrestling (or judo, sambo, jiu jitsu, mixed martial arts, etc.) is to reflect that being grounded by your opponent, with him on top of you or standing over you, is a disadvantageous position. To some extent it reflects that in the combatives from which those sports are probably descended, being taken down was likely to result in swift defeat. quote:No amount of wrestling training is going to keep you on your feet when you get surprise body-checked by 300 pounds of armored knight, nor when you're being pushed back by four ranks of spearmen. You're right about all this. The basic issue is that people have been commenting on a video of some kind of HEMA tourney posted above, which involved no formation fighting, little use of weapons, and seemingly no actual grappling, resembling a mosh pit. The fighting consisted mainly of men in armor rushing around and shoving one another with their shields until someone fell down, then the man still on his feet would run over to someone else to shove him. I'm asserting that in reality, fighting did not look like that because, in addition to the use of formation fighting, it is very difficult to knock down a man who is aware of your intent and trained specifically to avoid being knocked down. quote:As for historicity, remember that we're looking at a small subset of medieval warfare. The vast majority of medieval combatants were poorly armed peasant levies that couldn't defend themselves well against an armored knight in the first place. This is actually a modern myth; most medieval battles involved professional soldiers, probably in part for the very reason you say--that peasants could not resist men-at-arms. canuckanese posted:It's actually not as complicated as it looks, maintaining a strong base is hockey 101. Okay thanks. Not being Canadian, I don't have an outstanding appreciation for the techniques involved in hockey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Doesn't seem that complicated in theory, if in a fight, someone tries to knock you over, you should first avoid being knocked over, second, try to fall in a manner where you can recover immediately, and third, if all else fails try to do it so you can still fight. Doubly so for a fully armored dude, whose main vulnerability is being immobilized for the kill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:This doesn't address the question of why we do not see fechtbucher recommending flying tackles, or accounts of tourneys or battles where dudes body checking eachother played a major role. It probably happened commonly after battles, as the losing side gave up fighting and fled for their lives, but if it had any utility against an enemy who was actually resisting, we would expect to see it attested in the documents. Which, again, it isn't. I'd argue the fechbucher mostly showed techniques aimed at intermediate level students or were used by the author or student as memory tips and left out the incredibly basic techniques. Body slamming a dude not looking to you is as basic a move as there is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:This is wrong. The only martial arts that do not train takedown defense are sporting forms whose rules specifically ban grappling, such as boxing. This is backpedalling. "Training in takedown defense" is a far cry from ubermensch wrestlers that cannot be knocked down. Knocking someone to the ground is the key to fighting an armored opponent, and it's a lot easier than you think it is. quote:This is actually a modern myth; most medieval battles involved professional soldiers, probably in part for the very reason you say--that peasants could not resist men-at-arms. "Professional soldiers" or no, they're still levied peasants and they're still poorly armed compared to a knight. That doesn't mean that they're wielding farm tools, but a spear and shield isn't comparable to armor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"Professional soldiers" or no, they're still levied peasants and they're still poorly armed compared to a knight. That doesn't mean that they're wielding farm tools, but a spear and shield isn't comparable to armor. I think they mean mercenary legions. Which are most certainly not levied peasants by virtue of being neither peasants nor were they levied.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
CreepyGuy9000 posted:What do you consider to be most well executed or the most glamorous siege of a town/castle/fortification in the medieval time period ? Well-executed sieges tend to be UNglamorous. Indeed, the most glamorous events in my view occur when sieges fail, especially successful sallies by outnumbered defenders. Give me a minute to think on this, though, and I will come up with an answer for each. Unzip and Attack posted:What are the various advantages of different weapon types? I mean, it sounds like the spear was the most common weapon used pretty much up until the advent of muskets, but why would an individual choose to wield a sword vs. an axe. vs. a mace in battle? The spear was used well after the invention of musket (thus pike-and-shot formations) and there were dudes running around on horseback with literal lances into the First World War. The choice of weapons was partly down to personal preference. Robert the Bruce carried an axe at Bannockburn, Wace describes a French mercenary knight carrying a 'cudgel' at Hastings. In both these instances the majority of knights around them would be armed with swords. There were also many practical reasons for weapon choice. Axes, hammers, falchions and maces are all weighted toward the top end of the weapon, enabling them to strike harder than you would with a sword (discounting halfswording for a moment). However, this distribution of weight puts more leverage on the hand and thus such weapons were typically shorter than swords, or lighter overall. There are also practical reasons. The Eastern Roman Kataphraktoi carried 'iron maces' in part because they expected to come up against other heavily-armoured opponents. It is for this same reason that we see the popularity of hammers, axes, and maces in the 15th and 16th centuries. Swords, however, were the more versatile weapon, and in many cases proved adequate for defeating armour. Additionally, something that has been suggested to me is that there was a kind of inherent resistance to change that kept weapons we might see as 'antiquated' in use, essentially the notion that 'if it was good enough for my father, why shouldn't it be good enough for me?' But this is speculative. INTJ Mastermind posted:A sword is basically a long pointy piece of iron. It's quality is almost 100% dependent on the quality of the iron. But not only is the material relatively rare, it's usually full of impurities that must be removed. They didn't really have scientific metallurgy back then, so a lot of it was trial and error. Each individual smith had his own secret recipes that were closely guarded family secrets, but unless you had an electron microscope handy, you can't reliably assess the quality of your blade until you swung it at someone else's and see whose snapped first. There is a lot in this post that is wrong. While many swords contained iron components (such as those made by pattern-welding or wrapped construction) the cutting edge, was almost always made of steel. The quality of metal has something to do with the quality of the sword, but the heat treatment is very important, I would say equally so. Steel without heat treatment cannot keep an edge anywhere near as well as treated steel, nor can it flex, and is much more liable to break. It seems that this particular confusion continues to your understanding of spears. 'any poo poo piece of scrap iron' would not do 'just fine'. Aside from the fact that spears have sharp edges (something that wrought iron cannot maintain after first contact with wood or linen or a butterfly), wrought iron is prone to bend far more than steel. I don't know by what rationale you can say the point is not intended to be the 'load bearing component' when the point is where force is applied to the target. Kaal posted:"Professional soldiers" or no, they're still levied peasants and they're still poorly armed compared to a knight. That doesn't mean that they're wielding farm tools, but a spear and shield isn't comparable to armor. It is not only knights that wore armour. Indeed, by the time of full plate harness I would say a quite small minority of armored men had been knighted. Additionally, while the levying of peasants did sometimes occur (Louis VI's use of the 'commune' system is one example) these men did not tend to fight in major battles, nor were they the vanguard in siege assaults. We also do not know how the commune system worked, exactly, and whether the men that it brought were wholly amateur, semi-professional, or professional. But in these earlier times, the ownership of a horse was the key point of distinction between 'well-armed foot-soldiers' (super armatos pedites) and knights (milites, miles, or equites). These armoured foot-soldiers, who are explicitly non-knightly, are seen in the 1128 siege of Bruges, at the battle of Bremule in 1119, to look at early 12th century examples. They only become more common as time goes on and the cost of iron, and of armour, go down. By the time of the full plate harness a foot-soldier who did not come to battle with some kind of metallic armour would be a rare sight indeed. Beyond that, however, a shield, spear, textile armour in a defensive position could prove quite difficult for an armored knight to overcome, despite what you seem to think. The Battle of Hastings, the initial stages of the Battle of Falkirk, and other examples all show that body armour was not essential to defend against knights, no matter how well-armoured those knights were.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 21:09
|
|