|
Kaal posted:Amusingly, this dichotomy continues to the modern day. The ceremonial swords of U.S. Army officers, for instance, are curved sabers, while those of the NCOs are straight-swords. But are the NCO's swords referred to as sabers? From your post I assume that they are, but some googling tells me they're just called swords. As far as cavalry goes, I never connected being used by cavalry as what makes a saber a saber. I understand that cavalry frequently used sabers because curved blades are handy for that sort of thing, but that's it. Is that how it first got started? Some uppity army general or something just went all "Look, our cavalry use sabers, so even if you give us a straight sword, we're still calling them sabers. Now kindly STFU and GTFO." That would explain the Paton 'saber' I suppose.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Buried alive posted:But are the NCO's swords referred to as sabers? From your post I assume that they are, but some googling tells me they're just called swords. As far as cavalry goes, I never connected being used by cavalry as what makes a saber a saber. I understand that cavalry frequently used sabers because curved blades are handy for that sort of thing, but that's it. Is that how it first got started? Some uppity army general or something just went all "Look, our cavalry use sabers, so even if you give us a straight sword, we're still calling them sabers. Now kindly STFU and GTFO." That would explain the Paton 'saber' I suppose. Army NCO swords are sometimes called sabers, but I think that's probably out of general ignorance. Marines use sabers*, and Army officers use sabers, so it's an easy mistake to make. Sabers are essentially slashing weapons, which is why they were heavily used by light cavalry and naval marines. The term "saber" is also typically used to generally differentiate Napoleonic-weapons from those used during the Medieval periods. It also has something of a dashing and heroic connotation - bad guys carry cutlasses or scimitars, but heroes carry sabers. *Amusingly though, the Marine Corps apparently does not call them sabers because of tradition. But the weapon type is clearly a traditional saber. Similarly, West Point clearly has a straight sword and yet they refer to them as sabers. Doesn't make any sense, but there you go. http://www.militarysabers.com/military-sword-information/m-us-army-sword.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Railtus posted:But, I think the names of the Crusader kingdoms were based on Patriarchal sees from before the East-West schism when the Orthodox & Catholic Christians separated from each other. The initial patriarchates were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. So the kingdoms of Antioch & Jerusalem were probably named after the ancient Patriarchates that were recovered for Christendom, and I presume Edessa used a similar naming convention just to fit in. Edessa was the chief city of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the largest city in the region though that isn't saying much for a region of inland mountains and deserts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
pulphero posted:they guy I study under wrote up an article on the nationalistic debate during the Napoleonic era over strait vs curved sabers. That is really funny, and helpful. Thank you! I like how the soldiers were more or less staying out of this debate and going for compromise designs. Luigi Thirty posted:Edessa was the chief city of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the largest city in the region though that isn't saying much for a region of inland mountains and deserts. That certainly makes sense, and fits in with the theme of naming the kingdoms after major cities and religious centres.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
If the French heavy cav had swords that could only be used for thrusting, why didn't they just go back to spears or swords directly? That picture of the charging Frenchman with their swords over their heads reminds me of some descriptions pre-stirup spears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:If the French heavy cav had swords that could only be used for thrusting, why didn't they just go back to spears or swords directly? This is getting well outside my area, so heads up: However, my feeling is that the late French cavalry swords could not only be used for thrusting – it was just what it was good at, so you could still cut or chop or hack with it to some degree: you would just be at a disadvantage compared with other swords. To a degree, lances still were used as late as the Battle of Elandslaagte (21 October 1899), German uhlans were noted as still being equipped with lances at the outbreak of World War I. As for why it was not more common, my guess is that lances were just too cumbersome compared with other options such as pistol cavalry. The lance has extra reach than a sword, but a pistol-armed cavalryman has better range than the lance. Getting closer to my time period, there is a nice article on MyArmoury called From Lance to Pistol, covering the relative decline of the lance - http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Goddamn, you own. The music fits really well, yeah. It's from the movie's soundtrack, which is simply excellent. The plot of the movie essentially boils town to: "I, Jet Li, am the best fighter of all time in every discipline, send your best to come get wrecked" so he does a lot of foolin' around because he's apparently out of these dudes leagues by nautical miles, so I guess that's why he's doing a bunch of showy spins and such. Mostly I was wondering if the fore-arm blocking of the sword was a dumb idea or not, and now I'm super pumped that it's legitimately something you should do in certain situations because it's completely badass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
First of all, I came across an interesting pdf - I've not had time to read the whole thing... all 646 pages... but certainly looks promising so far. http://www.hammaborg.de/pdf/transkriptionen/leckuechner_cgm582/zabinski_mitchell_fritz_leckuchner.pdf Babe Magnet posted:Goddamn, you own. Thanks! And the forearm blocking is absolutely right under certain circumstances, though it seems like the armguard specialised sports/duelling equipment (more often a cloak or gloved hand was used in the original fightbooks, probably because you're more likely to have those to hand in a self-defence situation). Those kind of arm blocks get the most use in rapier fencing, and as you can see he was wearing protection. Normally, you want to avoid trying to block/intercept a full force blow with it, I would rather use it aggressively to pre-emptively bind/push their weapon away while keeping my weapon hand free. You might block the blow with your sword, then use your arm-guard to keep the pressure on their sword while you free your own sword to attack. I would still rather use a dagger, a buckler, or even a rolled-up cloak (cloak fighting can be pretty neat) than an arm-guard like that, but it's definitely something you can do. By the way, I may I have posted this up before, but there's a video that outlines some of these methods here (rapier related stuff starts around 19:30). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8q0vxMMmGw Some of diGrasse's work on cloak-fighting. http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/di_grasseCloak.htm Railtus fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Awesome. I don't think there are any better movie swordfights than the duel at the end of Rob Roy, but I thought this movie did Medieval violence pretty well: 
Nektu fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Nektu posted:You probably mean the fact that 3 people win against a whole troop of soldiers who for some reason do not even try to organize themselves for the fight. Instead, most stand around in the background (edit: even when the hero's back is turned towards them!) and look menacingly while the templars massacre their companions one by one Well, no. Not at all really. They fight back to back across about fifty feet. James Purefoy hops on a horse and takes off right when the Danes assemble into a shield wall and kill the gently caress out of the Templars. I am willing to suspend my disbelief enough to accept that 3 heavily armed and armored veteran soldiers with the element of surprise could fight their way across a couple of yards in the 30-45 seconds it takes for the opposing force to form a shield wall and slaughter them. Show me The Perfect Movie Swordfight Nektu I long to see it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Well, no. Not at all really. They fight back to back across about fifty feet. James Purefoy hops on a horse and takes off right when the Danes assemble into a shield wall and kill the gently caress out of the Templars.  Yea, I sounded like an rear end in a top hat, didnt I?I like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w (still has its problems - the vikings dont wear helmets and still dont suffer head injuries even though the saxons keep hitting over the shields, and that the saxons for some reason forget to cut below the shields into their unprotected legs and groins). Also this axe-fighting scene starting at 8:37 in this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFaWwa17Ma0&t=517s Edit: vvvv Hahahaha, right you are. But when was the last time a movie showed something like unit cohersion and shieldwall fighting? That show is trying surprisingly hard to have decend fight scenes (instead of spartacus-like bullshit). Nektu fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Nektu posted:
Also the fact that nobody bothers to just walk around the comically small shieldwall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Nektu posted:
Yes, it starts off really well and the fact it uses a cohesive shield wall puts it above the mainstream. There are details such as they could have used the narrow path they came out of to cover their flanks and so on, but I’m happy to see semi-realistic unit tactics and coherent use of formations. Thanks for introducing me to the series. I’m going to start watching it now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Also the fact that nobody bothers to just walk around the comically small shieldwall. They're a peasant militia assembled in just a few hours. "Stand in ranks and poke with spears and hide behind your shield" may well have been the full extent of their training. In the middle of a fight tactical innovation is the last thing to expect from them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:They're a peasant militia assembled in just a few hours. "Stand in ranks and poke with spears and hide behind your shield" may well have been the full extent of their training. In the middle of a fight tactical innovation is the last thing to expect from them. Genuine question: What about the use of plunging fire at that distance and the mild penetration of the shield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
If anyone else starts watching Vikings, I should give you the heads up that it really underestimates the role of armour in medieval (or Viking age) combat. The very first scene shows someone getting stabbed through what looks like a brigandine (out of period, so let's pretend it's a gambeson), while the heroes wear only cloth shirts.Jack B Nimble posted:Genuine question: What about the use of plunging fire at that distance and the mild penetration of the shield. At 1:08 it seems further away. However, to need such a large arc at those distances would imply a fairly weak bow, and a fairly weak bow would be less likely to penetrate the shield. A combination of direct shooting and arc shooting is possible to make it harder for shields to cover all the necessary angles though, though in the video it looks like they’re shooting at 45 degree angles. Most tests I have seen show shields stopping arrows with far less penetration, for instance there is this one with Mike Loades - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZnTCQptWc – However, again, I think his bow is not very powerful (he draws it pretty casually). I did come across this discussion - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7175 – on the subject of minor penetration and how it might be possible. None of the sources I am familiar with mention the arrowhead getting past the shield when the arrow sticks in, but it could be because it was not important enough to mention in the descriptions rather than because it did not happen. The pilum or spiculum was said to be able to puncture shields (in De Re Militari, if you’re wondering about the reliability of the source) so it is not impossible for arrows or other weapons to puncture shields a little as well. Arglebargle III posted:They're a peasant militia assembled in just a few hours. "Stand in ranks and poke with spears and hide behind your shield" may well have been the full extent of their training. In the middle of a fight tactical innovation is the last thing to expect from them. Which side are the peasant militia? The guys waiting on the beach have armoured warriors with helmets and swords; I doubt a peasant militia with minimal training would be quite so well-equipped. Railtus fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Which side are the peasant militia? The guys waiting on the beach have armoured warriors with helmets and swords; I doubt a peasant militia with minimal training would be quite so well-equipped. They're not a peasant militia, they're part of the Saxon king's army. They should be familiar with such basic concepts as flanking an enemy and not doing a fruitless and idiotic charge directly into the center of a shield wall. Vikings is alright, but not because its battles are so well done or anything like that. They don't have any battles that aren't silly for a bunch of reasons, mostly because they can't cast an armies with more than 20 people in it. Overall though, generally, it's a really cool show. I'd like to read your take on the big climactic holmgang when you get to it. e: And I'm going to have to call bullshit on that running arrow shot Ragnar takes when he's defending the village from the jarl's men. Try to run and shoot a bow sometime. It would be impossible to hit anything if your target is smaller than the side of a barn. Sexgun Rasputin fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:They're not a peasant militia, they're part of the Saxon king's army. They should be familiar with such basic concepts as flanking an enemy and not doing a fruitless and idiotic charge directly into the center of a shield wall. That is what I thought. They clearly had an important leader figure, along with decent equipment, so I would expect a professional warband or at least a fyrd or something similar just judging by their organisation and kit. The impression I get so far is Ragnar seems like the semi-legendary kind of warrior that does a lot of impossible feats (in the same way guys from the sagas tend to be not-entirely realistic either). If I approach it with that mindset then it doesn't bother me quite so much. At some point you will need to remind me of the holmgang scene, because by the time I get there I will have probably forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Railtus posted:The impression I get so far is Ragnar seems like the semi-legendary kind of warrior that does a lot of impossible feats (in the same way guys from the sagas tend to be not-entirely realistic either). If I approach it with that mindset then it doesn't bother me quite so much. Yeah, but running is the exact opposite of the thing you need to be doing with your body while you draw a bow. It's like if he won a duel by sticking the sword between his legs and waving it around like a penis. The big holmgang scene is the most important duel of the first season. I can probably find video of it now if you don't mind being spoiled slightly. It's pretty obvious in the first episode who the person Ragnar will end up dueling at some point is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Nektu posted:I like this one: There are a lot of weird choices for this scene. Why are the Saxon (or Angle? are they in Northern England?) shields so TINY? Why is their formation so open? Why are their archers more heavily armoured than their foot-soldiers? Why are swordsmen at the front of the formation? I assume the Vikings are trying to get back to the ship. Why not just burn their boats? They aren't going to be carrying that huge cross if they try to swim. Hell, why not just burn their ship? Why the hell did a bunch of guys not pour through that opening in the shield wall when they spread it to let one man shoot an arrow? So much of this is really stupid. Incidentally, cutting below the shields is a lot harder than you think, especially when you are pressed as close to your enemy and to each other as these guys were. Such circumstance limits angles of attack quite severely. Railtus posted:At 1:08 it seems further away. However, to need such a large arc at those distances would imply a fairly weak bow, and a fairly weak bow would be less likely to penetrate the shield. A combination of direct shooting and arc shooting is possible to make it harder for shields to cover all the necessary angles though, though in the video it looks like they’re shooting at 45 degree angles. Yeah they are more or less, for what looks like less than 100 feet of separation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
How widely was lamellar armor used in the Middle Ages? It was popular with the Rus and Byzantines, but I never hear about it being used elsewhere in Europe. Is mail a generally superior choice or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Railtus posted:If anyone else starts watching Vikings, I should give you the heads up that it really underestimates the role of armour in medieval (or Viking age) combat. The very first scene shows someone getting stabbed through what looks like a brigandine (out of period, so let's pretend it's a gambeson), while the heroes wear only cloth shirts. It probably would have hosed up their desired character designs. And yea, it is a shame.Railtus posted:At 1:08 it seems further away. However, to need such a large arc at those distances would imply a fairly weak bow, and a fairly weak bow would be less likely to penetrate the shield. A combination of direct shooting and arc shooting is possible to make it harder for shields to cover all the necessary angles though, though in the video it looks like they’re shooting at 45 degree angles. Based on my personal experiences with archery I would also say that the arrows shown in the scene would not even come close to penetrate those shields like shown - but thats somewhat understandable, because its so hard nowadays to find actors that are willing to jump in and help out after their predecessors got killed by an arrow on scene  Sexgun Rasputin posted:Yeah, but running is the exact opposite of the thing you need to be doing with your body while you draw a bow. It's like if he won a duel by sticking the sword between his legs and waving it around like a penis. And yea, the actors technique was bad, that bow had probably a really low drawweight to allow him to do it at all, and it would have been better to just stop for the half second it takes to shoot instead of running on - still, a snapshot like that is possible and lady luck may be on your side regarding the whole "yea, I hit it" thing. Also the hit he scored does not look like a killshot, but any surprise-arrow-in-the-back is enough to distract someone for the 5 seconds it took him to run past. Asking a historic question again: did the vikings even use bows in warfare or were they only known as hunting weapons? Nektu fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Railtus posted:The impression I get so far is Ragnar seems like the semi-legendary kind of warrior that does a lot of impossible feats (in the same way guys from the sagas tend to be not-entirely realistic either). If I approach it with that mindset then it doesn't bother me quite so much. The show is actually supposed to be the saga of Ragnar Lodbrok, who was indeed a legendary Viking warrior. For the sake of television they changed history around, such as making Ragnar the first Viking to ever raid England, but it's supposed to be the same basic story as the saga.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:How widely was lamellar armor used in the Middle Ages? It was popular with the Rus and Byzantines, but I never hear about it being used elsewhere in Europe. Is mail a generally superior choice or something? Medieval Europe tended far more towards mail than lamellar. Lamellar, or at least scale, seems to have been at least known about, but it seems to be uncommon. Later on, the jack of plates or coat of plates might be interpreted as a form of scale armour, but that is getting a few too many steps removed from lamellar. Some Carolingian (Frankish empire) illustrations are suggested to have depicted scale armour. I found some detailed discussion here - http://asnoc.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/carolingian-arms-and-armor-in-the-ninth-century/ - the link gives the possibility that they might be depicting mail, although someone has been helpful enough to give examples of the artwork and it doesn’t look plausible as mail to me - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9561 Age of Charlemagne suggests no Frankish scale armour has been found by archaeologists, although that is contradicted by the next source. One interesting find in the Americas is this - http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/viewFile/21/22 - though I would strongly suspect the form is a jack of plates. I should note that this source contradicts Age of Charlemagne about the archaeological finds in Europe: it claims scales found indicate it was quite common pre-10th century. Met Museum seems to suggest garments of overlapping scales were used, although gives no indication of the frequency - http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/arms/hd_arms.htm However, the primary armour prior to the development of plate in medieval Europe definitely seems to be mail from the sources I know of. It is what knights chose, and their armour developed more towards more complete mail coverage instead of using scales. Mail was certainly an excellent choice; this article - http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html - gives quite a few examples of just how effective mail could be: stopping many arrows, or even couched lances on occasion. The author of Mail: Unchained, Dan Howard, I have also seen on other forums stating that Frankish mail was very expensive and in demand in the Byzantine Empire compared with the local lamellar. While I have not verified it directly, it does sound plausible to me, because Anna Comnene commented on the effectiveness of Frankish armour. I’m struggling to find the exact quote at the moment, but I got the impression she found the armour of the Kelts (as she called them) very good. Nektu posted:Asking a historic question again: did the vikings even use bows in warfare or were they only known as hunting weapons? Vikings definitely used bows in warfare. There are quite a few examples of bows being mentioned in battles or sagas, including by some very high-status individuals, giving the impression that a bow was respected as a weapon of war. Some examples here - http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_bow.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Asking a historic question again: did the vikings even use bows in warfare or were they only known as hunting weapons? From Wikipedia: quote:The institution known as leiđangr , was a public levy of free farmers typical for medieval Scandinavians. It was a form of conscription to organise coastal fleets for seasonal excursions and in defence of the realm... Bows are cheap compared to armor, so it would be relatively cheap for farmers to equip themselves with bows. It seems that bows were quite common weapons. They were used in opening phases of battles and in sieges. Here's more stuff: http://www.strongbowsaga.com/showwik.asp?WikID=38
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
I wouldn't assume a bow has low poundage just because Mike "BMF" Loades draws it effortlessly. Nektu posted:Based on my personal experiences with archery I would also say that the arrows shown in the scene would not even come close to penetrate those shields like shown - but thats somewhat understandable, because its so hard nowadays to find actors that are willing to jump in and help out after their predecessors got killed by an arrow on scene The only reason horse archery is feasible is because 1. you can keep your posture straight while riding and 2. there's a point in a horse's run where all four feet are off the ground and you have a split second of stability (while your posture is perfect) to loose your arrow. Neither of those things is possible while running. It would be more realistic if he did some kind of running jump and loosed in midair, which is still ridiculous but something I've seen done. Imagine you're trying to run and shoot a pistol but it's twice as difficult. Ugh. When I go try to shoot while running today and end up sending an arrow through my neighbor's window I'm suing everyone in this thread and Something Awful LLC. I advise you to retain counsel ASAP. In the beach scene they're shooting 32 inch+ war arrows with massive broadheads that a low poundage bow probably couldn't even propel further than maybe a few hundred feet even with a big arcing sky draw like that. The arrows would be carrying almost no energy when they arrived at the target. If those bows were weighty enough to hunt deer with then they're shooting from what is basically point blank range and at full draw the arrows should land deep hundreds of feet behind them. There's no explanation for the archery in that scene, it doesn't make sense on any level. What the hell, vikings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Vikings definitely used bows in warfare. There are quite a few examples of bows being mentioned in battles or sagas, including by some very high-status individuals, giving the impression that a bow was respected as a weapon of war. Some examples here - http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_bow.htm The thing about eastern-style composite bows is interesting - I had no idea that those where actually used that far north. I guess trade or looting made it possible to get a few up there. Sexgun Rasputin posted:The only reason horse archery is feasible is because 1. you can keep your posture straight while riding Sexgun Rasputin posted:and 2. there's a point in a horse's run where all four feet are off the ground and you have a split second of stability (while your posture is perfect) to loose your arrow. Sexgun Rasputin posted:Neither of those things is possible while running. It would be more realistic if he did some kind of running jump and loosed in midair, which is still ridiculous but something I've seen done. It is also (as I said above) completely true that it would have been far better to just stop for the half second you need to take the shot. I also entirely see your point, and Im also not saying in the least that you are wrong. Lets just leave it at that, or we will spend ages sperging about it  Sexgun Rasputin posted:Ugh. When I go try to shoot while running today and end up sending an arrow through my neighbor's window I'm suing everyone in this thread and Something Awful LLC. I advise you to retain counsel ASAP. Sexgun Rasputin posted:In the beach scene they're shooting 32 inch+ war arrows with massive broadheads that a low poundage bow probably couldn't even propel further than maybe a few hundred feet even with a big arcing sky draw like that. The arrows would be carrying almost no energy when they arrived at the target. Sexgun Rasputin posted:There's no explanation for the archery in that scene, it doesn't make sense on any level. What the hell, vikings? Nektu fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Nektu posted:True. But its still bad form to damage your actors while shooting a scene. Guess thats the whole of the explanation. There is no conceivable way that actual arrows were actually shot at actual human beings for a tv show, no matter how low the poundage. Not when it was cheaper and safer to build what is clearly a model of a shield wall with dummies inside. Dummies that look like lumpy bags with boots sticking out the bottom. They could've done any number of things but they went with a sky draw that is offensive to reason because it looks cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:There is no conceivable way that actual arrows were actually shot at actual human beings for a tv show, no matter how low the poundage. Not when it was cheaper and safer to build what is clearly a model of a shield wall with dummies inside. Dummies that look like lumpy bags with boots sticking out the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:They shot some actual arrows at Toshio Mifune back in the days. And it looked really cool. So it did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITyt4RvmBFw
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:They shot some actual arrows at Toshio Mifune back in the days. And it looked really cool. Sexgun Rasputin posted:There is no conceivable way that actual arrows were actually shot at actual human beings for a tv show, no matter how low the poundage. Not when it was cheaper and safer to build what is clearly a model of a shield wall with dummies inside. Dummies that look like lumpy bags with boots sticking out the bottom. I really like that viking show and maybe got somewhat carried away. It is still a good show that contains surprising amounts of actual history for a history channel show, and all of you should watch it  .Nektu fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Bows are cheap compared to armor, so it would be relatively cheap for farmers to equip themselves with bows. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Yeah, except that they take a shitton of practice to be able to use correctly. You can't just go from zero to "can fire the thing" in a day, which may have been one of the reasons that early firearms took off. A significant reason for the decline in the use of the long bow was precisely that it took so much practice. Lawn bowling was a significant contributor, it turns out. It became such a mania in the Middle Ages that Edward III had to outlaw it because the peasantry were playing it instead of practicing their archery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Yeah, except that they take a shitton of practice to be able to use correctly. The way I've heard it, you can't just go from zero to "can fire the thing" in a day, which may have been one of the reasons that early firearms took off. Although I don't have personal experience with either bows/crossbows or the earliest firearms, so I might be wrong. I'm not an archer either. What I've read, is that while it's not easy to hit your target with an arrow, it doesn't take years of practice. The hardest part of using those powerful warbows is the amount of strength you need to use them effectively. English longbowmen can be recognized from their skeletons, because their constant practice from an early age made their bodies adapt, and they had enlarged left hands etc. If half the men in leidang ships were equipped with bows, it would suggest that archery was a popular sport, so I don't think that lack of practice was a problem for the vikings. Early firearms weren't necessary more effective than bows, but you could take some underfed, stunted poor and train him to use a firearm in a short period of time, but you can't create good archers from the thin air. All good archers (and slingers) have come from cultures where their sport has been widely spread. And if you're a war-leader from some of those cultures, then it is relatively cheap to equip large numbers of archers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
I found something else that might be of interest to people. It is a German video (so I can't understand it), but it tests out a gambeson and gives the impression that they may be vastly more study than often assumed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8hGswaBWMk I'm not sure what to conclude, but it seems worth sharing and taking a look at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
What cultural traits are common to the regions that fielded a lot a of slingers? It won't surprise me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't archers tended to come from groups that either hunted or did a lot of sport shooting? So what advantages did the sling have over the bow aside from price?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Shepherds and the like would use slings to chase away wolves and other livestock-eating animals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What cultural traits are common to the regions that fielded a lot a of slingers? It won't surprise me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't archers tended to come from groups that either hunted or did a lot of sport shooting? So what advantages did the sling have over the bow aside from price? Areas with lots of stones but few trees would naturally develop slinging before archery. In the Middle East/Mesopotamia region, for example, every kid growing up would learn to use a sling, but there were few trees suitable for making bows and arrows, hence only the wealthy could afford it. As international trade developed and the advantages of bows became obvious to everyone, countries would start importing the sort of wood needed for military archers in quantity to make up for their lack of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Also shepherding means you have about 16 hours a day of sitting in a field with nothing to do but practice your slinging.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
I heard the Irish were badass slingers who didn't adopt the bow until the Viking invasion of Ireland. Is that accurate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 10:22
|
|