|
Supposedly slings were used to hunt anything from birds to deer, so it might be one of those things where you need to have done it since childhood to really be good at it.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Loomer posted:Why they lost favour, I can't answer at all. The reasoning I've heard on this is that developing the skill required to be accurate with a sling takes a long, long time. As a rudimentary way to thought test this, just imagine a person who has never shot a bow or fired a sling. Give them both weapons and which one do you think will be more accurate in the hands of a novice? This isn't to say that being an accomplished archer doesn't take time, but the sling is simply a more skill-intensive weapon, especially at the beginner level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
It is a shame we never saw horse slingers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:It is a shame we never saw horse slingers. If you could afford a horse why would you still be using a sling?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:If you could afford a horse why would you still be using a sling? I suppose if you were some sort of hipster horse archer, you might try it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:If you could afford a horse why would you still be using a sling? I was thinking steppe nomads with slings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I was thinking steppe nomads with slings. Too hard to use on a moving horse and remain accurate, I would think. Swinging a rock near your own head is dangerous enough, but what if you brain your own horse or something on accident? Bows and spears are just easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Too hard to use on a moving horse and remain accurate, I would think.. Probably what they said about bows too until a handful of European armies got slaughtered. It was a half-joke anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Probably what they said about bows too until a handful of European armies got slaughtered. It exists. Tibetans and Mongolians both do slinging from horseback, for hunting. Often using darts. But it's like dragooning, the horse is just transport. They bring the horse to a complete stop before using it, and stand up in their stirrups. If they didn't, the circle wouldn't clear the horse's neck. Would not really make a great war weapon, especially compared to the badass bow technology they have. Source: I've seen 'em do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:It is a shame we never saw horse slingers. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Just a heads up – I am on my way to Bosworth Fields tomorrow, and have been packing this week among other things. I do not know if I will have internet access, but I will be away on the festival for the next few days. Answers right now will be very limited. Toponyms: That would require more research than I have time for right now. I admit I would not know many of those terms myself, so I have the feeling they would be uncommon. I think monks are the most likely to be well-acquainted with classical literature and names, but I suspect knights would not have too much information, and a merchant is only likely to know if he dealt with distance trade. These are pure guesses on my part. Fyrd levies: In 1066 fyrds were used by King Harold Godwinson, and while he lost to William of Normandy he did manage to repel an invasion by Harald Hadrada that year. Alfred the Great made use of them against the Vikings. However, he also made a lot of adjustments to the system at the time as well, so it would not necessarily be an unedited fyrd. Slingers: Slings did receive plenty of military usage in antiquity. Another interesting thing I have heard but not verified is the Conquistadors apparently considered sling balls to be extremely powerful; like arquebus balls - in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, historian Charles C. Mann quoted a conquistador, who said that an Incan sling "could break a sword in two pieces" and "kill a horse." The range thing is more about being less affected by the wind, so stories of outranging archers might be due to the weather conditions. Why the sling fell out of favour is pure speculation. From what I know, bows are much more accurate, or at least easier to be reliably accurate with. I also think culture is a factor; in medieval Europe, your average peasant did not practise with the sling as a hobby since he could walk, and without that training the bow is probably a better option. Even with that training, you might get better returns by teaching them archery instead; the English longbow, while overhyped, did get some pretty impressive results. I doubt the sling would compete with some of the more high-powered bows out there. Temple of Solomon: I think they knew it was the Al-Aqsa Mosque at the time (since they welcomed Muslims to pray in there) but I think they more re-Christened it as the Temple of Solomon rather than viewing it as the original.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Fun fact: the Holy Roman Empire was in fact an empire, holy, AND Roman. Discuss. This just showed up in my Facebook feed. First history troll I ever saw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Well it was definitely an empire, I'm not sure why Voltaire was disputing that. It was holy in the sense that it was strongly connected to the pope, so I'd give them that. It was originally crowned as successor to Rome by what is probably the second-best claim to Romanhood (the Papacy) so depending on how generous you feel you can give them that too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Well it was definitely an empire, I'm not sure why Voltaire was disputing that. It was holy in the sense that it was strongly connected to the pope, so I'd give them that. It was originally crowned as successor to Rome by what is probably the second-best claim to Romanhood (the Papacy) so depending on how generous you feel you can give them that too. The Ottoman Empire has a much better claim, it conquered the actual Roman capital plus the Sultan took the title Emperor of Rome from the previous holder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:The Ottoman Empire has a much better claim, it conquered the actual Roman capital plus the Sultan took the title Emperor of Rome from the previous holder. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:The Ottoman Empire has a much better claim, it conquered the actual Roman capital plus the Sultan took the title Emperor of Rome from the previous holder. I disagree, it was a foreign power conquering the capital. More importantly, a foreign culture. I've made this example before in the Antiquity thread I think, but imagine if the USSR had conquered the US. Would giving the soviet leader title of POTUS make sense? I would argue not, though they might have done so for propaganda reasons. Or imagine if the US would occupy large territories in the Middle East and declare the president as the Caliph. I am of the opinion you need a certain cultural claim within the culture you are usurping for the strongest claim. I add that last part because the occasional general becoming the new emperor was business as usual in Rome, but those were always internal struggles and accepted parts of the Roman culture. Likewise, a foreigner inheriting the throne to your country is A-OK because it operates within the cultural bounds of your country, while a conquering slaughtering the ruling class and declaring themselves king has the lesser claim. Note specifically the 'lesser' part, I don't argue the Ottomans had no claim to Rum. Of course I don't think many people see it like this and you could probably have hours of discussions on what exactly constitutes a 'foreign' culture but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I disagree, it was a foreign power conquering the capital. More importantly, a foreign culture. I've made this example before in the Antiquity thread I think, but imagine if the USSR had conquered the US. Would giving the soviet leader title of POTUS make sense? I would argue not, though they might have done so for propaganda reasons. Or imagine if the US would occupy large territories in the Middle East and declare the president as the Caliph. I am of the opinion you need a certain cultural claim within the culture you are usurping for the strongest claim. Well, if you lean foreign culture you sorta have a dispute between Latin speaking Italians calling themselves Roman and a buncha Greek speaking Greeks calling themselves Roman so... plus you've got these really famous Emperors like... Basil the Macedonian, Leo the Isaurian, who were, you know, Isaurian and Macedonian. And did become emperor by showing up with a gently caress off army, kicking in the doors, and stabbing folks. I really don't think you can apply modern standards of nationalism to the medieval and ancient world. I mean, you can make the argument that Islam was a big old thing... if we ignore the fact that Constantine, oh noble founder of Constantinople, also radically changed the religious landscape of the Empire so, well, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Well Basil was from the empire, just not from Constantinople. Leo is a more complicated case as from what I quickly gather he was not from the empire. He was however a court figure long before taking the throne. Neither is even remotely comparable to a completely foreign conqueror.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I disagree, it was a foreign power conquering the capital. More importantly, a foreign culture. I've made this example before in the Antiquity thread I think, but imagine if the USSR had conquered the US. Would giving the soviet leader title of POTUS make sense? I would argue not, though they might have done so for propaganda reasons. Or imagine if the US would occupy large territories in the Middle East and declare the president as the Caliph. I am of the opinion you need a certain cultural claim within the culture you are usurping for the strongest claim. I dunno, that sounds exactly what happened in China several times; a foreign culture sweeps down, conquers huge swathes of China and set up a dynasty. Would you say that the empire of China didn't exist during the time of Mongol or Manchu rule?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Yeah, the culture and religion (and capital) of Rome had changed many times in the past by the time the Ottomans turned up that the precedent had been set already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Well, if you lean foreign culture you sorta have a dispute between Latin speaking Italians calling themselves Roman and a buncha Greek speaking Greeks calling themselves Roman so... plus you've got these really famous Emperors like... Basil the Macedonian, Leo the Isaurian, who were, you know, Isaurian and Macedonian. And did become emperor by showing up with a gently caress off army, kicking in the doors, and stabbing folks. I really don't think you can apply modern standards of nationalism to the medieval and ancient world. I mean, you can make the argument that Islam was a big old thing... if we ignore the fact that Constantine, oh noble founder of Constantinople, also radically changed the religious landscape of the Empire so, well, yeah. Dunno by late empire arguably the idea of "romanness" was primarily cultural and not ethnic. There's a difference between a separate, foreign power and someone who's already integrated into Roman society regardless of where their family's from. sullat posted:I dunno, that sounds exactly what happened in China several times; a foreign culture sweeps down, conquers huge swathes of China and set up a dynasty. Would you say that the empire of China didn't exist during the time of Mongol or Manchu rule? Well arguably it wasn't the same empire. Even the name changed. The whole idea of a unitary or continuous Chinese state that's existed since antiquity is pure propaganda. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Basil was Byzantine, he just wasn't from Constantinople. Leo is a more complex case, and I'll admit I've not paid that any attention because that succession isn't disputed. And yes, I would agree that the area of China under the Mongol Empire is not the same China as existed before. It was a part of the Mongol Empire now. I'm not entirely sure what happened to (the area of) China post-Mongol though. That said, there is room for a continuation to 'bounce back' after being dethroned. For example most of Greater Nazi Germany when it imploded back into Germany and the other European states. Only a real hardline historian would argue that post-WW2 France was a separate entity from pre-WW2 France for example. Again, I'll completely admit that this is just the way that it makes most sense to me and there's a billion things you could argue untill the end of time for. That said the comment of someone of not imposing modern nationalism on pre-nationalistic ideas is a very good point and I'll have to think about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Dunno by late empire arguably the idea of "romanness" was primarily cultural and not ethnic. There's a difference between a separate, foreign power and someone who's already integrated into Roman society regardless of where their family's from. Well you could say the same for Rome. Culturally, it was Greek speaking, Orthodox Christian religiously, and the art and architecture had largely moved on. What is this 'romanness' that legitimizes Leo over Mehmet? In China there definitely was something to the notion of the Mandate of Heaven and there was a real 'thing' about being the Emperor that went beyond 'yeah, I'm strongman the 8th, kneel before me.' Sure, the name changed, but the Byzantine Empire became Basileia Rhōmaiōn instead of the Imperium Romanum. So that logic doesn't work. I'm not saying we should be calling the Ottoman Empire "Rome," or the true successors to Rome. I'm saying that I've yet to see any logic that demands we treat the ERE as just "Rome" the one and only that can't also be applied to any number of other claims to the the title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
I might be being a dense plebian here but the distinction seems obvious, a change over hundreds and hundreds of years where Rome gradually moves towards Byzantine/Greek culture and rule and the immediate change in basically everything by a foreign culture and religion. It comes down to whether you think the degree of change and the time period it takes place over has any impact on what Rome is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:I might be being a dense plebian here but the distinction seems obvious, a change over hundreds and hundreds of years where Rome gradually moves towards Byzantine/Greek culture and rule and the immediate change in basically everything by a foreign culture and religion. It didn't happened in one day. Ottomans first came to existence in an area that was considered the heart of the Roman Empire. There were already centuries of co-existence between Romans and Turks and it resulted in some cultural fusions; results you can clearly see in Ottoman bureaucracy and ruling style. China comparison is apt. Despite the foreign cultural customs of the conquerors they ruled over roughly the same piece of land with many similar institutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
The Ottoman's certainly kept the Roman tradition of murdering Emperors and praetorianism alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
The exact same 'who was the inheritor of Rome' conversation is going on in the Classical history thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The exact same 'who was the inheritor of Rome' conversation is going on in the Classical history thread. Hah I'm 5000 posts behind in that thread anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Well it was definitely an empire, I'm not sure why Voltaire was disputing that. He wrote that in 1756. The Holy Roman Emperor at the time was Francis I, who got the job because his wife (Maria Theresa of Austria), could not have it as she was a woman. He served as her proxy. The Seven Years War was in progress, pitting the two most powerful states within the Holy Roman Empire (Prussia and Austria) against each other, along with their allies among the German princes. That is, the Empire was at war against itself. Since the war of the Austrian Succession had been fought in 1740-1748, this was for the second time in 10 years. It was pretty clear at that point that the Empire was largely a political fiction beginning to outlive its usefulness. quote:It was holy in the sense that it was strongly connected to the pope, so I'd give them that. The last Holy Roman Emperor to receive a papal coronation was Charles V, in 1530. The Pope's influence in the political affairs of the HRE was largely severed by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. quote:It was originally crowned as successor to Rome by what is probably the second-best claim to Romanhood (the Papacy) so depending on how generous you feel you can give them that too. Voltaire apparently wasn't feeling that generous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
How did Byzantine armies & soldiers compare to Western European armies & soldiers in regards to arms, armor, ethnic/racial diversity, organization & formations? Emphasis on towards the fall of Constantinople, but would also like to know more from 600AD onwards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:How did Byzantine armies & soldiers compare to Western European armies & soldiers in regards to arms, armor, ethnic/racial diversity, organization & formations? Emphasis on towards the fall of Constantinople, but would also like to know more from 600AD onwards. Early Byzantine armies (before 10th and 11th century) were based around a core of highly trained cavalry. Able to use both compound bows and charge with lances, this force was mobile and versatile, perfect for an empire facing threats on all fronts. They were able to perform difficult maneuvers in formation. Belisarius used these as the backbone of his force in reconquering North Africa and Italy. They were usually recruited from Anatolia. The downside was that training a trooper to shoot from horseback required years of intensive training. Losses were almost impossible to replace. The cause of the change was the nature of the war the Byzantines were fighting. Basil smashed the Bulgarians for good and Justinian's gains were reversed, leaving Anatolia the major front. 'Heavy' (in function and weaponry, not armor) infantry became more important, because they were able to take and hold territory more effectively. This is also when the famous Cataphracts returned to the forefront, because they could smash the Arab and Turkish light cavalry, if they could catch them. Both sections of the army remained very well drilled and disciplined, able to act in tandem. In both periods, when the Emperor himself went to war, he often called up large numbers of poorly-armed levies, but they were of dubious value. Civil war and losses (Manzikert!) took their toll on the hard-to-replace professionals, and the loss of central Anatolia to the Turks made their replacement impossible. Post Forth Crusade, there is no real Roman/Byzantine legacy to the army of the resurrected Empire. This is cribbed from Edward Luttwak's The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire. edit: going into more depth about ethnic stuff: the navy was usually Greek sailors from the various island possessions. The army was often Greek Anatolians living in the border regions. Mercenaries, especially Norse ones, were popularly used as security and an elite guard for the Emperor, because they were assumed to be more loyal than natives with divided loyalties. Smiling Knight fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Early Byzantine armies (before 10th and 11th century) were based around a core of highly trained cavalry. Able to use both compound bows and charge with lances, this force was mobile and versatile, perfect for an empire facing threats on all fronts. They were able to perform difficult maneuvers in formation. Belisarius used these as the backbone of his force in reconquering North Africa and Italy. They were usually recruited from Anatolia. I've always considered Greece to be rather populous, was it not? And I've always though of Byzantine as being Greek-centric, but you & everything I've ever read on this subject, affirms that Anatolia was the Byzantine heartland. DId Greece reach its critical mass population wise and people began immigrating to Anatolia? Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Anatolia becomes more and more Greek over a really long time, basically starting in the Archaic period and continuing through Hellenistic and Roman rule. Immigration was a part of it, at times, but much of it was just the cultural pressure of living in a place where Greek was the language of administration, education, and commerce. This process begins a reversal with the arrival of Turkic peoples after the battle of Manzikert, although yet again the primary engine of cultural change is assimilation and not replacement. There were large Greek populations in Anatolia right up until the end of WWI, when they were swapped for Greece's turks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I disagree, it was a foreign power conquering the capital. More importantly, a foreign culture. I've made this example before in the Antiquity thread I think, but imagine if the USSR had conquered the US. Would giving the soviet leader title of POTUS make sense? I would argue not, though they might have done so for propaganda reasons. Or imagine if the US would occupy large territories in the Middle East and declare the president as the Caliph. I am of the opinion you need a certain cultural claim within the culture you are usurping for the strongest claim. The Brits are perfectly happy being lorded over by Germans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I've always considered Greece to be rather populous, was it not? And I've always though of Byzantine as being Greek-centric, but you & everything I've ever read on this subject, affirms that Anatolia was the Byzantine heartland. DId Greece reach its critical mass population wise and people began immigrating to Anatolia? Greece is really bad farmland and pastureland, and all these things are important for empire-growing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Voltaire also promoted the concept of the Dark Ages of ignorance and superstition as well as ‘scientific racism’, so I am not a fan of him in general. My search engines are not working at the moment and I am in Bosworth away from some of my books so forgive me for working from memory. I can comment on what the Byzantines seemed to think, though whether it was right or not is another question entirely. Anna Komnene describes the Franks or Kelts as she calls them wore extremely strong armour, implying that Frankish mail was perceived as perhaps stronger than Byzantine mail, and perhaps even the mail-armoured Franks were as well-protected as cataphracts who wore more than just mail. Another detail she mentions is describing their charges as so powerful that they could break through the walls of Babylon, which also implies a knightly charge was perceived as stronger than other cavalry charges. But, Byzantine military doctrine for fighting against the Franks implies that the Frankish supply lines were relatively poor, meaning that the Franks needed to send out more foraging parties that could be defeated in detail, essentially isolated and destroying small groups of Franks rather than engaging them directly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Greece is really bad farmland and pastureland, and all these things are important for empire-growing. This makes perfect sense, thanks! I'm watching Conquest 1453 right now, the Turkish film made on the conquest of Istanbul, and boy is it something special 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Do we have any examples of the Fyrd levies proving useful, or do they mostly seem to have been a 'oh poo poo, we need men! OH CHRIST THE DANES ARE HERE!' thing? Alfred got a massive amount of utility out of the fyrds. They provided the vast majority of the manpower for his burghal system, which essentially ended large-scale Viking raids into Wessex. For all their fantastic martial reputation, Vikings were really not terribly interested in fighting trained and equipped armies (duh), and in fact, they were not terribly good at it. They were at their best conducting deep raids against soft targets, massacring the local defense, then egressing long before any substantive resistance could be put together. These raids were amazing military operations, but they depended largely on freedom of maneuver and incredible speed (for the time). On the occasions when their raiding parties were caught by trained and equipped forces, they didn't do all that well (particularly if they were all laden with plunder). The burghs made moving in and around Wessex a very hazardous venture. You had to pass within a few miles of one in most places, and it provided a virtually impregnable point of assembly for raised fyrds. After a while Alfred's power over the local nobility was such that he could raise a full-time garrison (by alternating two fyrds) that made it virtually impossible for the Vikings to get into Wessex without having to fight a capable opponent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Regarding dual wielding, what's the deal with Chinese weapons like the twin hooks and the butterfly swords? I know they used one handed thrusting swords and sabers martially, did any of those awesome Kung Fu weapons meant to be used in pairs get any use on the battlefield? They sure look effective in demonstrations, especially the twin hooks. Sorry if this is outside the purview of medieval history, I'm not sure exactly what time period these weapons would've seen practical use besides during contemporary martial arts demonstrations. Also, what's the deal with this bow:  Did any culture ever use full size longbows with asymmetrical limbs besides the Japanese? Seems like a pretty basic innovation (same power, but you can crouch while shooting!) but the only mention of straight-limbed asymmetrical longbows I can find is in reference to the early development of the Japanese Yumi. Also, I would like to mention that there is an archery thread in TFR that is in dire need of more nerdy medievalist trad archers (or any other kind). It's a good group with a wide variety of perspectives. If you want a safe place to sperg about archery please check it out: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3197043&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Not My Goodies posted:Regarding dual wielding, what's the deal with Chinese weapons like the twin hooks and the butterfly swords? I know they used one handed thrusting swords and sabers martially, did any of those awesome Kung Fu weapons meant to be used in pairs get any use on the battlefield? They sure look effective in demonstrations, especially the twin hooks. Sorry if this is outside the purview of medieval history, I'm not sure exactly what time period these weapons would've seen practical use besides during contemporary martial arts demonstrations. In general, they're pure gimmick weapons. Some people may have used them, but no one was ever arming a battalion of guys with tiger hook swords, because they're just not as good as regular swords. There are a few that there're at least records of people using (three sectioned staffs supposedly were good as a non-lethal restraining weapon ; deer-horn knives actually are pretty useful as knives), but in general it's either because of historical oddity (whatever retard came up with tiger hook swords), because it's a training aid (looking at you, double-headed spear) or because it looks cool and you're doing modern wushu so that's all you care about (loving rope-dart). So, I can't think of any of them being used on a battlefield, but deer horn knives are really good knives, so lots of people were walking around with those. But they're pretty much just funny-shaped knives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:18
|
|
