|
How feasible would caltrops be as a good area-denial weapon agaisnt cavalry? I imagine the amount steel needed to make thousands of caltrops big enough to not just get trampled into the dirt would probably be too expensive for the average nation during that period.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
GyverMac posted:How feasible would caltrops be as a good area-denial weapon agaisnt cavalry? I imagine the amount steel needed to make thousands of caltrops big enough to not just get trampled into the dirt would probably be too expensive for the average nation during that period. Would they really need to be made of steel? What would a metal caltrop/spike do that a wooden stake couldn't?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Are you sure he wasn't just hanging out in a bar in Antioch for a few months, living it up and writing rumors that he heard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:How feasible would caltrops be as a good area-denial weapon agaisnt cavalry? I imagine the amount steel needed to make thousands of caltrops big enough to not just get trampled into the dirt would probably be too expensive for the average nation during that period. Jack B Nimble posted:Would they really need to be made of steel? What would a metal caltrop/spike do that a wooden stake couldn't? Most caltrops throughout history were made simply out of a little wooden ball with iron spikes sticking into it. They're quite small, so you really need the metal to puncture the horse's hooves and the infantry's shoes. Punji sticks would be the wooden alternative, and they usually needed to be larger and therefore better camouflaged. The iron also rusts and is quite effective at causing infection, in a way that wood does not. That said, they were very cheap to make since the quality of the iron doesn't make any difference. They were used all over the place, and the Romans in particular loved using them since they didn't have a strong cavalry tradition. Caltrops were certainly effective against cavalry, and even the invincible Mongols had problems with them. There's a great article about them here: http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-caltrop.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:How feasible would caltrops be as a good area-denial weapon agaisnt cavalry? I imagine the amount steel needed to make thousands of caltrops big enough to not just get trampled into the dirt would probably be too expensive for the average nation during that period. Making them probably wouldn't be as troublesome as transporting them. How many carts are you willing to lug around that are filled with little spikes rather than food or equipment? The problem with most area-of-denial weapons is how they pose as much of a risk to your own forces as they do to an enemy. You can't lay them too wide without making it difficult to maneuvre your own troops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Probably more effective in a defensive scenario or to cover a retreating force from cavalry pursuit. Speaking of which, what kinds of nasty traps did medieval armies use? Not referring to ambushes, etc, but stuff like punji sticks, trip-wire crossbows, etc. Or was that all fiction?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, so are you saying that you don't want discussions of Mongols here, or what? I can't really tell what you're getting at. Are you saying looking at military stuff sociologically, so to speak, is beyond what you want this thread to be and I should cut it out, or what? Namarrgon/Arglebargle III summarised the problem best, though it’s more than that one post. I see it as pointlessly argumentative to tell me what conversations are or are not important (when someone asked questions on the topic), or take a comment out of its context when criticising, or to dictate what is necessary to tell people who have made a serious study on the subject (when the audience includes those who have not). Most of our conversations seem to go this way, and it’s tedious for me to deal with regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what you’re saying. I’m saying if this thread doesn’t fit your preferences, it doesn’t have to be the only thread to discuss medieval history. It seems a more positive option than bad faith bickering. Smoking Crow posted:The other day in my Renaissance History class, the professor just offhandedly remarked that Marco Polo probably never existed. Is that true? I know that he embellished his writings (I still want to believe, though There is a book called “Did Marco Polo Go To China?” that essentially argues that he did exist, but got all his information on China from second-hand sources. It’s not a common belief – I have never heard it suggested that he didn’t exist before. Apparently reviews of the book have been generally negative, partly on the basis that it relies on an argument from silence (basing conclusions on the absence of information rather than its presence) though I think the argument from silence is justified in this context because the missing info is things that should be recorded. Vogel makes an argument in favour of Polo having been to China: http://news.discovery.com/history/macro-polo-120423.htm That he does not mention the Chinese characters is somewhat strange, although it could be explained by him working through translators and therefore never having a reason to look at Chinese writing. I think Veekee’s suggestion is quite likely. I doubt all these events were the travels of one man, and I doubt that all the people involved did everything they claim, but there’s definitely too much reliable information for Polo to just be relying on rumours or travellers. By the way, Crow, I had answered your Templar question from a while back. I hope you got to see it. GyverMac posted:How feasible would caltrops be as a good area-denial weapon agaisnt cavalry? I imagine the amount steel needed to make thousands of caltrops big enough to not just get trampled into the dirt would probably be too expensive for the average nation during that period. You can use low-quality iron for caltrops just fine. They are mentioned in De Re Militari as being extremely successful against chariots. A caltrop can also be quite small: it probably does not require that much more metal than arrowheads, and those were certainly made in large numbers. On the other hand, I don’t get too many solid references to caltrops in a medieval context. I have heard them suggested online for Bannockburn & Crecy but I have not come across a reliable source or any hard evidence on the subject. I do not hear of them in many other medieval battles either despite the importance of cavalry, so they might not be that feasible. I should also note that despite the relatively rare use of caltrops, De Re Militari was very popular during medieval times according to Milner, so caltrops were definitely known about but their use seems far more limited. In short, they don't seem to be more feasible than other options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 21:33
|
|
), I just want to know if this is a common belief in historical circles.
|
Railtus posted:That he does not mention the Chinese characters is somewhat strange, although it could be explained by him working through translators and therefore never having a reason to look at Chinese writing. Have you heard anyone argue that Marco Polo was illiterate? I remember hearing an argument that he was dictating his stories--if he couldn't read then he wouldn't have much reason to look at Chinese writings. I like to imagine that he actually made the trip but yeah, the evidence for it isn't too strong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I’m saying if this thread doesn’t fit your preferences, it doesn’t have to be the only thread to discuss medieval history. It more or less does, actually. As per DA RULES: quote:2) Look before you post! There may already be a thread on the subject. Example: If you want to post a thread asking how to clean an animal skull, quickly search through and see if someone has already posted a thread about cleaning animal skulls before posting your own inquiry. Duplicate threads will be gassed and the poster will have their skull cleaned. SEE THE LIST OF THREADS BELOW. edit: Obviously there is some overlap with the milhist thread, and occasionally the classical thread, but Obdicut cannot go off and make his own medieval history thread in this forum, which is what I take your implication to be. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Namarrgon/Arglebargle III summarised the problem best, though it’s more than that one post. I see it as pointlessly argumentative to tell me what conversations are or are not important (when someone asked questions on the topic), or take a comment out of its context when criticising, or to dictate what is necessary to tell people who have made a serious study on the subject (when the audience includes those who have not). Most of our conversations seem to go this way, and it’s tedious for me to deal with regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what you’re saying. I'm not telling you what's important, I said what I find important. And the comment wasn't taken out of context, I really feel like saying "It was his turn" was pretty rude on your part, so it's weird to me that you're getting irate with me. I do, really, disagree with your basic concept of 'his turn' as you've explained it even in expanded form. I don't know what you mean by me trying to dictate what is necessary to tell people, either. I'm sorry that you're getting offended, but even when you expanded your flippant "his turn" comment I still do fundamentally disagree with you, and it kind of seems like it's my disagreement that bugs you. I don't think that offering my opinion is attempting to dictate anything, and I'd ask you to read my posts without reading this idea of trying to wrest control away from you or something. And I haven't said anything in 'bad faith', and I don't think you have, either. Content: If it hasn't been put up already, Fordham university has an excellent, excellent online Medieval archive. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook.asp It's got a ton of scanned primary sources, translated and commented. Some would say it's behind the times because it has a section on "The Celtic World", but I love how much minituae and little laws, orders, proclomations, letters etc. it has. A good place for getting a feel for medieval life and relations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Content: Fordham is a great resource, and the translation of Suger they have on there is in some ways better than the Cusimano & Moorhead translation that I usually use. What do you mean by 'behind the times', though, when talking about the Celtic world?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Fordham is a great resource, and the translation of Suger they have on there is in some ways better than the Cusimano & Moorhead translation that I usually use. I don't have time to lay out an effortpost on it at the moment, but basically there's been a lot of contention about what Celtic is, especially as to whether certain cultures in Britain were, in fact, Celtic. The language group obviously existed, but that's not really a good proxy for culture or ethnicity. Dr. Simon James takes this to the farthest extreme, but I think at the least "Celtic" is always going to be unreasonably vague and imply a unity that is mostly just a taxonomic invention or a linguistic relationship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't have time to lay out an effortpost on it at the moment, but basically there's been a lot of contention about what Celtic is, especially as to whether certain cultures in Britain were, in fact, Celtic. The language group obviously existed, but that's not really a good proxy for culture or ethnicity. Dr. Simon James takes this to the farthest extreme, but I think at the least "Celtic" is always going to be unreasonably vague and imply a unity that is mostly just a taxonomic invention or a linguistic relationship. Ah, yeah, I can see that perspective. That said, the war-time treatment of Gaelic & Welsh speakers in Britain by Frankish (and I use that term to encompass Norman and Angevin rulers) armies was quite different to how the Franks treated each other. Even if the Celts didn't identify themselves by that collective noun, there is a very strong case that their Chivalric contemporaries did. Specifically I'm thinking of John Gillingham's 'Conquering the Barbarians: War and Chivalry in Twelfth-Century Britain and Ireland’ in The English in the Twelfth Century : Imperialism, National Identity, and Political Values Gaelic speakers in Ireland and the Western Highlands also kept very close contact, so although that is not as all-encompassing as the term Celts suggests, there are still some good groupings to be had under that heading, if only because 'Gaelic-speaking peoples' is a very cumbersome phrase. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Turn it around. What evidence or reasoning do you have for that belief? Why make the assumption that is most generous to the Mongols? I have a few reasons 1. The Mongols were fighting another war with the il-Khanate in 1284, a war that probably required the lions share of Golden Horde resources. The Mongols were tough but even they only had so many tumens. 2. The Mongos attacked almost every independent European state along their border in the 1280s, including Bulgaria in 1285 and Poland in 1287. These raids rarely assaulted forted cities or castles and typically ended with the attacked states becoming Mongol clients and sending hostages, as happened in Serbia in 1293, but retaining functional independence. Like the invasion of Hungary in 1285 these campaigns tended to be short. This is not a pattern I would associate with wars of conquest, and the short length of the campaigns is consistent with opportunistic quests for plunder. Wikipedia has an unsourced claim that the Mongols didn't even bring a siege train during the 1287 attack on Poland, which is consistent with the texts I found on Google Books describing that invasion as "half hearted" here 3. I can't find any details on the supposedly great victory in 1284. The only book I found that says more than "the Mongols all died or ran away, the end." Was written in 1880 and was apparently quoting the Russian historian Nikolay Karamzin who wrote in the early 19th century. I have no idea where he got his information. Found here While the raid of 1284 was clearly unsuccessful it is not clear it can meaningfully be compared to the action in 1241, not because the Mongols lacked their super general Subutai or their warriors had degenerated from those of the Mongol golden age, but because the campaigns were conducted with very different resource commitments and intended outcomes. Squalid fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't have time to lay out an effortpost on it at the moment, but basically there's been a lot of contention about what Celtic is, especially as to whether certain cultures in Britain were, in fact, Celtic. The language group obviously existed, but that's not really a good proxy for culture or ethnicity. Dr. Simon James takes this to the farthest extreme, but I think at the least "Celtic" is always going to be unreasonably vague and imply a unity that is mostly just a taxonomic invention or a linguistic relationship. I think the problem here is that anything to do with culture and ethnicity is automatically vague and ill-defined. For example try asking your someone what it means to be ethnically or culturally American, you'll get 50 different answers. In Britain discussions of Celtic people have been poisoned by nationalistic posturing and pseudo-race science, which is funny since modern genetics informs us that the English are more genetically similar to the Welsh, Scots and Irish than anyone else (excepting those whose grandparents came from England's south-east tip, who are more similar to other Germanic speaking peoples).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Real question, how accurate are the carvings in Basilica of St Denis? In particular, the ones that pre-date the statues that started being carved in the mid 13th century. (I assume the more recent ones are very good copies of the real people and the real fashion/armor). Would the faces have been given the marble equivalent of "soft focus" for the post 1250 burials? Is the fashion for pre- 1250 burials reliable? How about facial details? I've never been to St. Denis (one of my greatest shames) and am having trouble turning up pictures of what you're looking for, but I am a specialist on the mid-late 11th and early-mid 12th centuries so if you have some of your own I could look at I could take a whack at them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I've never been to St. Denis (one of my greatest shames) and am having trouble turning up pictures of what you're looking for, but I am a specialist on the mid-late 11th and early-mid 12th centuries so if you have some of your own I could look at I could take a whack at them. How do you call yourself a specialist then? Hell, if it's for work/study, a trip to Paris to see it would be a tax write-off. Go and do it! gently caress, it's not just Gothic, it's where Gothic was invented. There are pictures on the wikipedia page and the wiki pages of most of the monarchs after Clovis I, eg, Clovis I and II, Charles Martel, Dagobert, Carloman... They almost all have a photo of the carving in St. Denis. I'm not sure when they were carved, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was in the mid 13th century when the basilica was rebuilt in the Gothic style. I'm wondering how accurate the depictions of the (then) 700 year old styles are, and also are the carvings made contemporary to someone dying authentic or "glamorized"? edit: from wikipedia Clovis I  Clovis II  Carloman I  Charles I  There are stacks more, and I don't want to turn this into a wall of pictures Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I don't want to turn this into a wall of pictures This opinion is wrong. Just thought you should know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
I've got nothing constructive to add that isn't on GIS, otherwise I would.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not telling you what's important, I said what I find important. And the comment wasn't taken out of context, I really feel like saying "It was his turn" was pretty rude on your part, so it's weird to me that you're getting irate with me. I do, really, disagree with your basic concept of 'his turn' as you've explained it even in expanded form. It's really, really, funny that someone who is as knowledgeable you is finds an extremely common turn of phrase offensive because you've never heard the expression before. It's like you time-travelled here from 1900 or have never spoken to a human being in real life or something. Bizarre. Anyway, you should stop being such a dick about semantics and post more cool facts for me to read please. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:It's really, really, funny that someone who is as knowledgeable you is finds an extremely common turn of phrase offensive because you've never heard the expression before. I've heard the phrase before, quite often. Usually in reference to a politician being nominated, like my example of Kerry. I'm not sure how you thought I'd never heard the phrase before when I talked about the context in which I'd heard the phrase before. Does this make things less funny? On the border between 'cool' and 'the kind of TV-oriented marketing that's ruining history': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-24341285 Historians recreated what a particular monk would have looked like and then introduced him to a modern relative. I guess this is good for stressing the "They wuz human, just like us" angle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
I was wondering how the creation of the Dominicans changed lay piety. Did they effectively destroy heresy like they intended? Or was it all just inquisitions and torture? I have the same question, but for the Franciscans. Without the torture of course. Smoking Crow fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:It's really, really, funny that someone who is as knowledgeable you is finds an extremely common turn of phrase offensive because you've never heard the expression before. It's like you time-travelled here from 1900 or have never spoken to a human being in real life or something. Bizarre. Anyway, you should stop being such a dick about semantics and post more cool facts for me to read please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Holy hell you nerds, he meant that things aligned in the right places and the right times that they were able to play to their strengths and do what they did. Instead of being guys who debate and discuss the proper way to host a conversation someone should tell me how you're supposed to rock and roll with a trident and a fishing net like all those pictures of Roman gladiators are holding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
It's pretty easy. You swing with the net and block with the trident.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Novum posted:Holy hell you nerds, he meant that things aligned in the right places and the right times that they were able to play to their strengths and do what they did. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
Novum posted:someone should tell me how you're supposed to rock and roll with a trident and a fishing net like all those pictures of Roman gladiators are holding. Go watch the bestest show ever Spartacus. It features some fights with those guys, including one who sets his net on fire. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
For those interested in life in the Medieval period in Europe beyond the nobility, the French historian Jacques Le Goff edited a really interesting set of ages. http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Callings-Jacques-Le-Goff/dp/0226470865 It also uses a great diversity of techniques in investigation. It really shows a variety of life and attitudes that's exemplary in a historical study. And for something with a more sociological/historical bent, he also wrote a book about labor and time in the Middle Ages, focusing very much on the changing attitudes towards both during the Middle Ages, the way that society changed during that time. Both of them are excellent books I highly recommend, and the book of essays especially should have something for everybody, even if you don't like Le Goff's ethnographic style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Today I've been reading medieval jokes instead of studyingquote:A young Florentine was going down to River Arno with one of those nets in which they wash wool, and met a frolicsome boy, who, out of fun, asked him what birds he was going to catch with that net of his? “I am going to the Brothel’s outlet,” replied the youth, “to spread my net there, and catch your mother.” “Mind you search the place carefully,” retorted the boy, “for you will be sure to find yours there also.” quote:I knew an old Bishop who had lost some of his teeth, and complained of others being so loose that he was afraid they would soon fall out. “Never fear,” said one of his friends, “they won’t fall.” “And why not?” enquired the Bishop. His friend replied, “Because my testicles have been hanging loose for the last forty years, as if they were going to fall off, and yet, there they are still.” quote:In Florence, a young woman, somewhat of a simpleton, was on the point of delivering a baby. She had long been enduring acute pain, and the midwife, candle in hand, inspected her secret area, in order to ascertain if the child was coming. “Look also on the other side,” said the poor creature, “my husband has sometimes taken that road.” quote:A man who had given his wife a valuable dress, complained that he never exercised his marital rights without it costing him more than a golden ducat each time. “It is your fault,” answered the wife, “why do you not, by frequent repetition, bring down the cost to one farthing?”
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
PiratePing posted:Today I've been reading medieval jokes instead of studying  Do you have a link for more of these?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
For now, I’m concentrating on the duel from Vikings, because I promised it. This fight here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgF9PQFQk64 Normally a duel like this would be a holmgang; normally there would be a small hide or a cloak on the ground to act as the ring, rather than being surrounded by the crowd. Kormakssaga describes it as 5 ells square; then there were stakes in the corners. The description sounds a bit too much like a boxing ring, really, which might be why they left that bit out: a Viking duel inside a boxing ring might be a little absurd to the viewer - http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/holmgang.shtml From what I understand the small space was so fighters could not do much retreating, a bit like Xarm - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpu99bOgzqE Also fighters typically had 3 shields, not 2. As for replacement weapons, apparently many warriors who fought in holmgangs would carry a second sword on a lanyard around the wrist, implying that people bringing replacement weapons was not usual. Starting the fight, the guys discard a shield. I’m not even sure if either fighter can. I assume a broken shield is broken: and if you drop one you can pick it up again. Of course, nothing says a fighter has to pick up the shield again, and I suppose the rules just never account for people being so stupid. I’m guessing it’s done to show bravery; the Earl is insecure about losing his power-base and by fighting an already-injured Ragnar he needs to prove he’s not a coward. The Earl also has issues. Why is it Earl and not Jarl? The first few cuts around 1:52 are big swings and Ragnar leaves his shield out behind him. However, his injuries include a major one in his back that probably makes keeping his shield forward while swinging his sword very difficult. There’s a hint of that again around 1:58 where the exchange has clearly strained his injuries. Ragnar’s main advantages are his speed and power, and his early assault is an attempt to use his physical advantage to compensate for his limited range of motion from his injuries. Technically the holmgang was supposed to have the challenged (Earl) strike the first blow, so they took turns. The shield use is not aggressive thus far. There should be more use of the shield to bind from the Earl at least, for an example of the aggressive use check this video (starting from around 4:40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc The spin around 2:12 is normally a very bad sign, though again can be excused by Ragnar compensating for his injuries. There’s a shield punch to try and keep the Earl on the defensive. The sword breaks around 2:20, and while I would not expect a sword to break on an impact like that, the sword has been taking edge-on-edge impacts earlier and might be weakened by previous abuse. Another thing in a previous episode is the Vikings (in the series) considered the Saxon steel swords to be superior (from an earlier raid). To my knowledge Viking & Saxon swords were fairly similar, with no major cross-culture technology difference, but it’s entirely possible that this relatively impoverished Viking community (again in the series) did not have the best examples of Viking craftsmanship. Then they exchange shield bashes. The Earl is not just trying to kill Ragnar or win the fight, but is trying to prove his superiority by clearly overcoming him. This is backed up when the Earl then discards his own sword rather than just killing Ragnar there and then. I think the ‘selling’ is excellent. Around 3:08 Ragnar ducks under a swing, and is hopping back clearly favouring one leg. It does an excellent job of demonstrating that his injuries are what held him back from an immediate counter-attack without doing Shawn Michaels-esque theatrics of pain (noisy but funny - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC6jPR4OyUw ). After 3:12, Ragnar’s axe blow is beaten down with a strong hit to drag him off-balance and leave him exposed to a backhand swing. The rest of the exchange is difficult to see with the camera, but they start wrestling and straining around 3:18, which each man having grabbed the other’s axe-handle. Then they use the hafts of their weapons like crossed staves. It looks kind of silly with such small axes (I’d try to grab the other guy’s axe and then target the hand holding it), but it’s not completely silly as a short jab from an axe can still do a lot of damage. Around 3:39, Earl successfully does what he tried at 3:12. It’s actually interesting to see. The next few attacks are committed because Ragnar has trouble retaliating, so the fact he leaves himself vulnerable is not entirely silly. It’s difficult for Ragnar to stop a direct blow now, which is why the Earl makes the big swings; because he doubts Ragnar has the strength to stop them. When he mostly dodges, the Earl grabs him with one hand to stop his next dodge, and launches another big swing Ragnar will not be able to stop directly. I do not see clearly how Ragnar deflects the attack, but he redirects the axe swing aside and stuns him by using the butt of the axe in a stabbing motion like a dagger or ice-pick/reverse grip to the chest. It winds the Earl, while Ragnar steps aside to launch a powerful backhand that serves as the fight-winning blow. This moving around your opponent seems overly theatrical, but he needs room to swing that axe, especially after that blow to his shoulder requiring him to use mostly one-hand. Grand Prize Winner posted:Have you heard anyone argue that Marco Polo was illiterate? I remember hearing an argument that he was dictating his stories--if he couldn't read then he wouldn't have much reason to look at Chinese writings. I haven’t, but I don’t know how much of any dialect of Chinese he understood. Depending on his command of the local language, he may have already been dependent on interpreters for reading anything in Chinese: a bit like I would not try reading much in France despite using the same alphabet. Rodrigo Diaz posted:It more or less does, actually. Alright, in that case I apologise. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Obdicut posted:I'm not telling you what's important, I said what I find important. And the comment wasn't taken out of context, I really feel like saying "It was his turn" was pretty rude on your part, so it's weird to me that you're getting irate with me. I do, really, disagree with your basic concept of 'his turn' as you've explained it even in expanded form. Your disagreement is not what bugs me at all. The impression I get from your posts is that my explanation does not cover the entire story, and that there’s other aspects I have not mentioned: which I don’t have any problem with. There are certainly more aspects to the situation than just those I have mentioned. However, when combined with “It's not necessary to poke holes in them for anyone who's looked at them at all seriously” as a criticism it seems like a double-bind that condemns both covering any given aspect and not covering any given aspect. This has gone on for too long already and I’d like to get back to answering people’s questions. Novum posted:Holy hell you nerds, he meant that things aligned in the right places and the right times that they were able to play to their strengths and do what they did. From what I understand net-and-trident is a gimmick fighter; gladiators were not always the most effective warrior, often it was done to intentionally create a certain kind of struggle. In this case, the net-and-trident guy needed to rely on reach and distance, because he had very limited armour and no shield. Trident & net guy was a Retiarius, and his opponent was usually a Secutor who had a short sword and shield. The idea is that the net-man had to avoid the swordsman until he had an opportunity to strike; he can throw his net to try entangling his foe though it would be unreliable since his opponent had a large shield, or he could try to entangle his opponent’s sword. Mostly I imagine the net techniques would look very similar to cloak-fighting I showed not too long ago. EDIT: The trident is going to be much like using a spear. Essentially the Retiarius had to avoid close-combat, and hopefully make the Secutor (in a horribly restrictive helmet) lose sight of him by moving around him. Another trick was to keep jabbing until the Secutor was tired out from blocking with his shield. There was a rope attacked to the net and the net-man's wrist as well. A successful cast of the net would have the net-man pull on the draw-cord to tighten the net and pull them off-balance. A disadvantage of the rope is that the Secutor could grab the net, or stand on it, or do something else to limit the mobility of the Retiarius. A dagger could be used to cut the rope in these circumstances though. As I look up some more, you could use the net to trip, or throw it at their face to blind them, and so on. Railtus fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I do not see clearly how Ragnar deflects the attack, but he redirects the axe swing aside and stuns him by using the butt of the axe in a stabbing motion like a dagger or ice-pick/reverse grip to the chest. From my reading of it, Ragnar side-steps in the middle of the strike and that puts the Earl's controlling arm in the way of his own ax. The Earl is forced to overcompensate in order to avoid chopping off his own hand while killing Ragnar, and that leaves the Earl offbalance and undefended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Those two comments are about entirely different things, though. I don't think that your explanation covers the whole story, as I made very clear, and I think it's an oddly incurious attitude; to me one of the very fun things in history is examining the way that conscious actors made decisions-- contingent decisions, but still decisions-- that had far-reaching effects. Genghis Khan was a very unusual person, and he changed Mongols society in ways that were very important for the way the empire developed. Likewise, in many other events in history, Medieval and otherwise, you find a lot of people making decisions that change their societies, and that is really fascinating. It seems to me that you're making more of a 'broad social forces' argument, and I think that is severely lacking especially when applied to something as rare as empires. Sure, there have been a bunch of them, but they're all still very unique and have very interestingly different approaches to how they became great powers. But simultaneously, I think that acting as though there's an idea of Mongol invincibility that needs to have holes poked in it is silly and very close to straw-manning, because nobody has made the claim of their invincibility and if you know anything about them you know they lost battles and campaigns and, eventually, their empire. They weren't militarily or politically invincible, and though fractured portions of the empire survived for a long time, the empire was on the shorter side especially when you look at what a solid position they began from, much more politically solid than Alexander's brief kingdom. There isn't, except for the most naive person, a myth of Mongol invincibility, so yeah, I don't think you need to attack that. I'm not resisting you pointing out weak points in Mongol society or the military-- I've been doing that too, especially by pointing out the fragility of the succession process and how much that crippled the empire-- I'm just resisting the hyperbole people are throwing around about an idea of Mongol invincibility. I think debate is healthy, and while I may disagree strongly with your theory in this one particular place, I think you've done a great job populating the thread with interesting information, sources, and mixing pop-entertaining of swordfight choreography together with a really right-up-my-alley examination of the daily life of the knight, not just when at war but the exercises and training he did in the off-season. That's exactly the kind of stuff you'll find in the Le Goff book I recommended above, and I think you might enjoy it. I think you're an excellent advocate for medieval studies. So if the problem has been insufficient gratitude for the niftiness you've dropped in this thread, then sorry for my gracelessness, and please accept this raft of compliments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Those two comments are about entirely different things, though. I don't think that your explanation covers the whole story, as I made very clear, and I think it's an oddly incurious attitude; to me one of the very fun things in history is examining the way that conscious actors made decisions-- contingent decisions, but still decisions-- that had far-reaching effects. Genghis Khan was a very unusual person, and he changed Mongols society in ways that were very important for the way the empire developed. Likewise, in many other events in history, Medieval and otherwise, you find a lot of people making decisions that change their societies, and that is really fascinating. It seems to me that you're making more of a 'broad social forces' argument, and I think that is severely lacking especially when applied to something as rare as empires. Sure, there have been a bunch of them, but they're all still very unique and have very interestingly different approaches to how they became great powers. Thank you, though it’s not gratitude I’m after. However, I apologise for being overly defensive and I appreciate you making this post. I’ve been talking about broad social forces because basically I know the broad social forces rather than the details in that particular area. I certainly do not mean to discount the impact of individuals, I’m literally just not commenting on them because I can’t make an informed comment there (part of what annoyed me is I was thinking 'I don't recall disputing any of that...'). It’s entirely possible that I have preconceptions that are off-the-mark on what is necessary to include: previously, most of my debates have been on Youtube & Taleworlds forums where the myth of invincibility has been very common, and that combined with some of the historiography and bad documentaries I have encountered have led me to believe it was a commonly held view.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
I seriously think that part of the reason why a lot of people know it's not true is they know that a 'Kamikaze' wind destroyed a Mongol fleet, and Japan was never conquered by them. Japanophilia + WWII phraseology. I think there is an impression of them as astonishingly successful, but I think that's an accurate assessment. They're an interesting case-study of success, with a lot of the reasons for that success on the highly purposeful, not at all accidental side. Europe in Medieval times, meanwhile, mostly attacked itself-- aside from the adventures in the Middle East. I think you make a good point that Europe was, say, more militarily dense than other areas, but I think the extreme political fragmentation, especially of the Holy Roman Empire, makes the idea of a coherent defense against the Mongols unlikely, and so victories investable. I also think that the crusading aspect would be limited because the Mongols allowed freedom of religion, which Friar John had reported on (if you haven't read his report, it's awesome: http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/carpini.html definitely not a guy who believed in Mongol invincibility) even after the "Prester John" myth got deflated. In other words, if you look at Mongol-Christian relations, you definitely don't see a 'crusading' aspect against them in general, more a bunch of shifting and confused attitudes that I don't think indicate either a real comprehension of the possible threat or an idea that unity was necessary to defeat it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Why is it Earl and not Jarl? A related question: why is it "Earl Haraldsson"? Haraldsson is not a family name, it's a patronym, and would be nonsensical to use like that. The short answer is that Vikings is simply not very historically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
railtus posted:Why is it Earl and not Jarl? I have heard some Nordic language speakers complain (I think the Skyrim thread) that Jarl is pronounced almost exactly like Earl and that a heavy "ya" sound is wrong. So this is actually an example of language correctness. railtus posted:a bit like I would not try reading much in France despite using the same alphabet. You should give it a try. You only need the most basic grounding in French verbs and connecting words like "donc" to read French with a decent level of accuracy if you are a college-educated native English speaker. The amount of vocabulary we share is astonishing when you actually go read something. I love donc. You read this erudite sentence and then "therefore" is replaced with DONK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:
The ones I quoted I grabbed from here, online/ebook versions of the Facetiae by Poggio here. The Art of Party Crashing is pretty good too. medievalists.net is a really good website by the way. They have tons of cool resources and amazing articles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Re: Earl vs Jarl in Vikings, there is a character who shows up later in the show who is referred to as a Jarl. Hes a Swede I think, which shouldnt make a difference, but Vikings does weird poo poo with names. Rollo is a good example. Later in the show the Northumbrians dub him Hrolf for his baptismal name, which is dumb, to quote one of my favorite viking books:The Vikings: Culture and Conquest posted:The name Rollo is a corrupt Latinate form of the Norse name Hrolf. Medieval French sources, following Dudo of St.-Quentin, indicate a Danish origin,... [Heimskringla, Book of Settlements, and The Saga of the Orkney Earls] state that Hrolf was the son of the Norwegian aristocrat Earl Rognvald of More... Awesome show though. AShamefulDisplay fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I have heard some Nordic language speakers complain (I think the Skyrim thread) that Jarl is pronounced almost exactly like Earl and that a heavy "ya" sound is wrong. So this is actually an example of language correctness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 12:01
|
|
