|
Hey everyone! I'm interested in taking classes for HEMA. I've already signed up for an intro class that's coming up in a few weeks. I live in New York City, and the only place I've been able to find that teaches German longsword is located here. It seems pretty interesting, and I'm pretty excited to see what it has to offer! I was wondering if anyone could tell me about their experiences with HEMA, if they know of any outside physical training I should accustom myself to, and what I can expect out of this type of training.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
They are a good school and Tristan is an excellent fighter and a good guy. I have hung out with him at a few events. I have been doing HEMA for around 4 years and it has been very rewarding. It brings together my love of history and rough and tumble activity. As far as what will be helpful general physical fitness will help. A lot of my knee pain I experienced early on could have been avoided with some strength training. With the deep stances you'll be doing it might be worth spending some time in them
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Hey everyone! I'm interested in taking classes for HEMA. I've already signed up for an intro class that's coming up in a few weeks. I live in New York City, and the only place I've been able to find that teaches German longsword is located here. It seems pretty interesting, and I'm pretty excited to see what it has to offer! As a fellow NYC goon who loves history and needs a new exercise/hobby, this is amazing. Thanks. Anyone have a rough idea on how bad this is on your knees? Roughly comparable to other martial arts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Longsword isn't that hard on you knees but Italian rapier can be a little rough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It's still a matter of some debate exactly how the Death manifested, with some folks still contending, like Michael McCormick in 2003, that it primarily spread by fleas. The fact that articles like this need to be published in 2011 show that 'we' is a very limited group. Hell, whether or not it's even Yersinia Pestis is debated, though recent archaeological stuff seems fairly conclusive that it is. Maybe it's just because I'm a modern historian and this isn't my subject but I don't really see why the plague couldn't have been transmitted by both the rat-flea combination and human-human interactions. I mean on the face of it, they don't seem mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Maybe it's just because I'm a modern historian and this isn't my subject but I don't really see why the plague couldn't have been transmitted by both the rat-flea combination and human-human interactions. I mean on the face of it, they don't seem mutually exclusive. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:17
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Maybe it's just because I'm a modern historian and this isn't my subject but I don't really see why the plague couldn't have been transmitted by both the rat-flea combination and human-human interactions. I mean on the face of it, they don't seem mutually exclusive. Notice I used the word 'primarily'. That it spread both ways is the normal narrative, but determining the primary form has a lot of implications for climate and hygiene and other things. Also, the archaeological evidence we have suggests it did not transmit by rats and fleas at all (at least in Britain), while the modern version of bubonic plague transmits exclusively by this. It is also worth repeating that the actual disease responsible is still debated. There is a lot unanswered. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Hey everyone! I'm interested in taking classes for HEMA. I've already signed up for an intro class that's coming up in a few weeks. I live in New York City, and the only place I've been able to find that teaches German longsword is located here. It seems pretty interesting, and I'm pretty excited to see what it has to offer! I have come across NYHFA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEBpu8eDsU - you could try contacting them through their Youtube channel. I hope that helps! Rodrigo Diaz posted:Notice I used the word 'primarily'. That it spread both ways is the normal narrative, but determining the primary form has a lot of implications for climate and hygiene and other things. At all? I would be interested in any links you have so I could follow that up, because it sounds intriguing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Railtus posted:At all? I would be interested in any links you have so I could follow that up, because it sounds intriguing. The best works I know of on the subject are Sam Cohn's Cultures of Plague: Medical Thinking at the End of the Renaissance and 'Epidemiology of the Black Death and successive waves of plague' in Medical History Supplement 27, but see also the Guardian article I linked up-page.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Can anyone point me in the direction of a sword school in Germany? I'm moving there in a month or so and want to start reenacting (again) and swordfighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Can anyone point me in the direction of a sword school in Germany? I'm moving there in a month or so and want to start reenacting (again) and swordfighting. Here is a good palce to start looking http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/896439
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
pulphero posted:Here is a good palce to start looking http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/896439
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
Ibn Khaldun, in the Muqaddimah (late 1300s) talks at length about how empires are gradually formed through settlement, initially composed of something like nomadic/primitively organized peoples. Was there a similar awareness or acknowledgement in other medieval cultures at this time? For example, if you asked an educated person, maybe a scholar, in late 1300s England, to what degree would their answer to: "what were the roots of your civilization?" depend on myth, and to what degree on a narrative derived from reasoning about verifiable historical data in what we would call a "scientific" manner?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
On the earlier dysentry thing. The Anglo-Saxons used adderwort, fleabane, strawberry leaves, feeding a man pottage (barley porridge, in all likelihood, rather than the sort of miscellaneous stew pottage can also mean) and hydrating him (and abandoning him if he keeps making GBS threads. Not exactly a good remedy - but a realistic approach. 'Food and hydration. If he keeps making GBS threads, don't bother.'), giving them water 'heated with a red hot iron' which would hopefully be sterile, and of all things; a bramble with both ends in the ground, cut and dug up, with nine shavings in the left hand. You then sing some, mix some mugwort and everlasting with the bramble, boil it in milk, and then drink it before breakfast after a good night's rest and fasting. That one is probably meant to work via magic. These are all distinct from remedies for 'just' diarrhea, however, and it seems that approaching what different groups use to try and treat a problem at different times can help shed some light. If one group is using something with exactly the opposite effect from another, they may be dealing with different problems - or a different school of medical thought may be in play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
How true is it that Turkish (Arab, Iranian, etc.) horsemen would rather flee a battle than lose their horses? And are there any other cultures that were like this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:How true is it that Turkish (Arab, Iranian, etc.) horsemen would rather flee a battle than lose their horses? And are there any other cultures that were like this? Okay, that bolded bit is all sorts of wrong but that aside... not really sure not my area of expertise. Seems pretty reasonable, giving that fleeing would he hard on foot if you're in a situation that's so dangerous to your horse. So it's a case of 'if I stick around here and my horse carks it I'm pretty dead as well, let's GTFO.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Okay, that bolded bit is all sorts of wrong but that aside... not really sure not my area of expertise. Seems pretty reasonable, giving that fleeing would he hard on foot if you're in a situation that's so dangerous to your horse. So it's a case of 'if I stick around here and my horse carks it I'm pretty dead as well, let's GTFO.' I was using Turkish as a catchall for dominantly Muslim groups in Anatolia, the Middle East, etc. And I meant they treasured them, e.g. like a family member, rather than losing their means to escape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Okay, well "Turkish" isn't a catchall for any of those groups at all so just use their actual names in the future. And lots of people loved their horses. Are there any specifics to this horse-adoring that you remember?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Okay, well "Turkish" isn't a catchall for any of those groups at all so just use their actual names in the future. I realize I forgot to mention any specific time frame, but I meant after the Arab conquests & before the 13th c. Wouldn't Arab & Turk be synonymous? Slim Jim Pickens posted:And lots of people loved their horses. Are there any specifics to this horse-adoring that you remember? "It should be noted that the Arab, Iranian, Turk and generally Muslim horsemen felt a great affection for their horses, so the Byzantine spearmen, archers and javelin-throwers had to target the horse more than the rider. It is known that many Muslims preferred to flee rather than lose their horse, a choice that led to the disruption of their battle line."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I realize I forgot to mention any specific time frame, but I meant after the Arab conquests & before the 13th c. Wouldn't Arab & Turk be synonymous? Um, no, not at all. Turks were steppe nomads from Central Asia, like Mongols. As such their use of cavalry was pretty different than those of Arabs. They were trained in mounted archery for starters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I realize I forgot to mention any specific time frame, but I meant after the Arab conquests & before the 13th c. Wouldn't Arab & Turk be synonymous? No, not ever. They're completely different ethnic groups, originating from different parts of the world, culturally very distinct from one another, and they differed significantly in their military practices. quote:"It should be noted that the Arab, Iranian, Turk and generally Muslim horsemen felt a great affection for their horses, so the Byzantine spearmen, archers and javelin-throwers had to target the horse more than the rider. It is known that many Muslims preferred to flee rather than lose their horse, a choice that led to the disruption of their battle line." When direct quoting from a particular source please cite it in case somebody else wants to look it up themselves or at least assess its likely validity. Just going by the quote it doesn't look like much. It describes the Byzantines firing on the Muslims' mounts as a special tactic, when in fact it was ordinary practice wherever archers shot arrows at cavalry. The horses are bigger and easier to hit. Alternatively, their size and surface area makes them more likely to be hit when an area is being bombarded with volley fire. They also tended to be less well armored than the men riding them, especially with the kind of light cavalry preferred by many Muslim armies. Simply weathering a barrage of arrows, rather than turning away to preserve your mounts, would be very stupid. In any case I'm sure any cavalry soldier regardless of ethnicity would be fond of his mounts, because they spent a lot of time together, taking care of them was a huge part of his job, and they were very expensive. Basically the passage reads like an orientalist flight of fancy, trying to over-explain something that is normal and not particular to any culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I realize I forgot to mention any specific time frame, but I meant after the Arab conquests & before the 13th c. Wouldn't Arab & Turk be synonymous? Arabs, Turks, and Iranians were the primary constituent groups of the Abbasid Caliphate, but they're three separate ethnicities so it simply isn't accurate. There's also the distinction between "Turkish" and "Turkic", but that's a little nitpicky. I'm not familiar with early Islamic horse culture, but I can tell you that if the Romans found it strange, it'd be because their own cavalry raising practices differed dramatically. The horseman of the Roman army was a member of the elite genty, and owned a parcel of Anatolian land with which they could extract income and support their own horses and equipment. Losing a horse in battle would still be bad, but at least it was a temporary loss. The armies of the Islamic Caliphates consisted of a mix of professional soldiers as well as tribesmen fighting mainly for plunder. For the poor light cavalryman of an Islamic army, losing a horse would be a bigger deal than the landed Roman because that meant returning home with a significant loss to your family and neighbours. And of course, losing your horse in a battle isn't exactly a good way to survive one. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:In any case I'm sure any cavalry soldier regardless of ethnicity would be fond of his mounts, because they spent a lot of time together, taking care of them was a huge part of his job, and they were very expensive. And besides horses were pretty vital to pastoral nomadic life and the tribe's economic well-being. You'd really not want to lose them unnecessarily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I realize I forgot to mention any specific time frame, but I meant after the Arab conquests & before the 13th c. Wouldn't Arab & Turk be synonymous? I think your confusion here is over contemporary Latin (or Frankish if you like) terminology toward their Muslim adversaries during the crusades. Sources like Joinville and the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi. Saracen is a similar term, though that is an even trickier term, as by the 14th c. the Teutonic knights referred to Baltic pagans by that term. Muslim sources did a similar thing by calling all Latin/Western European peoples 'Franks'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I think your confusion here is over contemporary Latin (or Frankish if you like) terminology toward their Muslim adversaries during the crusades. Sources like Joinville and the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi. Saracen is a similar term, though that is an even trickier term, as by the 14th c. the Teutonic knights referred to Baltic pagans by that term. Muslim sources did a similar thing by calling all Latin/Western European peoples 'Franks'. Also, that last thing is where Star Trek got the term "Ferengi." "Ferengi" = "farang"= "Frank." It's a commentary on the capitalism of Western Europe and the US. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Hell, I've heard Saladin called the "King of Babylon," but that's probably intended to be more symbolic (tyrannical enemy of the righteous, comes from over-there-ish) than "realistic," if you can even make that distinction with a bunch of medieval literature. Impulse wikipedia search posted:Farang khi nok (Thai: ฝรั่งขี้นก) is a particular variety of guava, feijoa. Scruffy Westerners, especially backpackers, may also be called Farang khi nok. This means "bird-poo poo farang", as khi means waste and nok means (wild) bird; but, while khi nok may mean guano, it is also a species of fish, Diagramma pictum, a species of grunts Haemulidae.[3] Farang khi nok stating that Westerners are bird poo poo, is referring to the colour of a Westerner's skin, white, and the colour of bird poo poo, white.  Goddamn it now I want to go back to Thailand...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Hell, I've heard Saladin called the "King of Babylon," but that's probably intended to be more symbolic (tyrannical enemy of the righteous, comes from over-there-ish) than "realistic," if you can even make that distinction with a bunch of medieval literature. Well considering Baghdad was arguably the most important city of Saladin's empire besides Jerusalem, that's not the most unfair term. This is especially true in an era when classical civilization was revered quite seriously, so France was occasionally called Gaul, Palermo was called "the Panormitan city" by Orderic Vitalis, Galenic medicine was still standard practice etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Wasn't Baghdad the largest city in the world at the time? Its only major rival during the whole early middle ages was Chang'an and that was sacked in the 8th century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Well considering Baghdad was arguably the most important city of Saladin's empire besides Jerusalem, that's not the most unfair term. I'm fairly certain that Saladin never controlled Baghdad, and the city and adjacent territory was under the Abbasid Caliphate until conquered by the Mongols in 1258. I know they were under Seljuq domination from the 11th century onward, but after looking it up it seems the Caliph was sovereign in Iraq from the mid 12th century to 1258. I'm also doubtful that Jerusalem was a major city in the Ayyubid dynasty after it was taken from the Crusaders, particularly in comparison with Cairo and Damascus. E: though of course it just occurred to me that if you were talking about which city European observers would have considered most important, that would almost certainly be Jerusalem Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Well considering Baghdad was arguably the most important city of Saladin's empire besides Jerusalem, that's not the most unfair term. This is especially true in an era when classical civilization was revered quite seriously, so France was occasionally called Gaul, Palermo was called "the Panormitan city" by Orderic Vitalis, Galenic medicine was still standard practice etc. The Ayyubids never ruled Baghdad. Probably Cairo/Damascus were the most important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wasn't Baghdad the largest city in the world at the time? Its only major rival during the whole early middle ages was Chang'an and that was sacked in the 8th century. Baghdad was on a long decline by Saladin's time. Cairo was probably the most important city in the Muslim world, which is why the Fifth Crusade set it as their objective instead of Jerusalem (and failed utterly).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Did the Muslims ever do counter-crusades?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I'm fairly certain that Saladin never controlled Baghdad, and the city and adjacent territory was under the Abbasid Caliphate until conquered by the Mongols in 1258. I know they were under Seljuq domination from the 11th century onward, but after looking it up it seems the Caliph was sovereign in Iraq from the mid 12th century to 1258. I'm also doubtful that Jerusalem was a major city in the Ayyubid dynasty after it was taken from the Crusaders, particularly in comparison with Cairo and Damascus. Hah, so it was! Not sure why I thought he held Baghdad. But yeah, I was using an apples-to-oranges 'important' there. Jerusalem because of its value to the Latins, Baghdad for its value to everybody else. And 'arguably' is the key word. Really, I shouldn't be so lazy and loose with terms, but it was labor day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
I remember hearing something about Ethiopian christians taking part of the crusades. Does anyone have info on this or know what they where equipped like?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Did the Muslims ever do counter-crusades? Well, they rallied a few times to push the Christians out of the holy lands, but it's not quite like they declared Rome a holy territory and made it an obligation to get there. Constantinople was a bit different, had been a target from very early on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
pulphero posted:I remember hearing something about Ethiopian christians taking part of the crusades. Does anyone have info on this or know what they where equipped like? They did not. Christians living in the target regions sometimes helped, but Ethiopia was beyond the edge of the world. European cartographers believed that there was a powerful Christian kingdom on the other side of Muslim holding them at bay, and if they broke through the Muslim lands enough, Prester John would aid them. Most people believe that this was a vabue remembrance of the Christian Ethiopia, but it could just be wishful thinking. When the Mongols showed up, many thought that was Prester John, but they didn't really help the crusaders out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
You have to admit, 'Prester John' sounds a lot like 'Genghis Khan'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
There was also the problem Ethiopian Christians would have been considered heretical by others. The Crusades were a Catholic endeavor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
fspades posted:There was also the problem Ethiopian Christians would have been considered heretical by others. The Crusades were a Catholic endeavor. Weren't the Ethiopians just Miaphysites, like the Armenians? And did this ever led to conflict between the crusader states and the non-Catholic (Miaphyisite, Nestor, etc.) before the fourth crusade? On the second question, I'm assuming Catholics wouldn't encourage conflicts with their Orthodox populations as they're still Christian and papa Byzantine was still alive and reasonably powerful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Weren't the Ethiopians just Miaphysites, like the Armenians? And did this ever led to conflict between the crusader states and the non-Catholic (Miaphyisite, Nestor, etc.) before the fourth crusade? On the second question, I'm assuming Catholics wouldn't encourage conflicts with their Orthodox populations as they're still Christian and papa Byzantine was still alive and reasonably powerful. You'd think that the two segments of Christianity would unite against their common foe, but you know, politics. Although the crusaders and the byzantines were allied, and cooperated on occasion, other times they would offer advice and well wishes, but no support. Part (well most) of the problem was that the byzantines had formerly owned much of the crusader states (especially Antioch, Edessa, and Cilicia, and were not happy that the crusaders viewed themselves as wholly independent. Obviously, the sack of Constantinople (motivated more by greed than religious differences) ended any cooperation between the two (although relations were tense after an unpleasant emperor massacred the city's Latins on the 1190s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 01:42
|
|