|
Speaking of traditions, were there any for when a knight died or was killed? Was there a big show made of it or did his squires drop the body off at a local church? What would happen to the squires, would they be handed off to another knight?
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
esquilax posted:I'm interested in hearing about battlefield looting in medieval Europe, though I imagine this is the type of thing that varied across time and culture. I'm specifically talking about looting corpses after a battle rather than looting farmland and towns. I could not think of an answer to this at first. However, some good sleep later and I have some thoughts to offer. The overall impression I get is that looting was done mostly by soldiers, on a first-swipe-first-serve basis. This is because it comes across as free-for-all. I am basing this on certain battles such as Verneiul that was lost because (in this example) the Lombard knights scattered the English archers and started looting the baggage train before the battle was even won. The other thing, which is slightly later, is artillery crews for landsknecht were paid extra to make up for not having the opportunity to join in the pillaging. So far I have not come across organised looting systems, although I would love to hear of some. My view of arms and armour is it was kept. I am told Harald Godwinson’s army was far better equipped at Hastings than they were at Stamford Bridge, due to looted gear from the Viking army. I don’t think there was a standardised policy regarding armour though. One problem with looted armour is that it will not fit, so you do not get to use all of it. That said, caches of spare swords and similar weapons do seem to get the occasional mention (though I am thinking of a saga rather than other more logistics-based sources). AATREK CURES KIDS posted:It was traditional for a studying craftsman to spend 7 years as an apprentice and 7 years as a journeyman before being accepted into the craftsman's guild. Presumably knights used the same time schedule because it followed the widely accepted custom. This is a slight nit-pick, but a journeyman was an accepted member of a craftsman guild. One goes from Journeyman to Master. However, I do like the idea of Page = Apprentice, Squire = Journeyman & Knight = Master. Nektu posted:Do I understand this correctly? Originally the whole "lay sword on both shoulders" ceremony was just a guy hitting another guy? Oh yes. It started off with a forceful box on the ear or neck. Later on it became a gentle stroke with the flat of the sword on the neck. Eventually the custom became a tap on either shoulder or both. Maybe because noblemen were less accustomed to being hit? Blast of Confetti posted:Speaking of traditions, were there any for when a knight died or was killed? Was there a big show made of it or did his squires drop the body off at a local church? What would happen to the squires, would they be handed off to another knight? I don’t actually know with much confidence. I believe it was the squire’s duty to arrange the burial; I don’t think there was much of a knight-specific custom for death, though knights were typically gentry or nobles (William the Conqueror knighted his son, so a knighthood was not considered redundant for a prince) so might have fancier funerals than the usual. With the squires, I don’t think there was an organised policy in place for what happened to them. However, I would expect them to seek a new mentor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Oh yes. It started off with a forceful box on the ear or neck. Later on it became a gentle stroke with the flat of the sword on the neck. Eventually the custom became a tap on either shoulder or both.  (oh god, I want to see this).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Well, could you imagine the queen of england boxing someones ear? Somehow I could... EDIT: Railtus posted:My view of arms and armour is it was kept. I am told Harald Godwinson’s army was far better equipped at Hastings than they were at Stamford Bridge, due to looted gear from the Viking army. I don’t think there was a standardised policy regarding armour though. One problem with looted armour is that it will not fit, so you do not get to use all of it. That said, caches of spare swords and similar weapons do seem to get the occasional mention (though I am thinking of a saga rather than other more logistics-based sources). Might have depended on the type of armor, wouldn't a good number of armor components be a fairly generic fit? Unless everyone was running around with high quality plate armor at least. And if all else fails it's still quite a chunk of valuable metal. veekie fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Well, could you imagine the queen of england boxing someones ear? Queen Elizabeth's military service number is 230873. She was trained as a mechanic and driver for the ATS. You bet I can imagine Her Majesty boxing someone's ear: I imagine if she did do it, that it would really hurt. veekie posted:Might have depended on the type of armor, wouldn't a good number of armor components be a fairly generic fit? Unless everyone was running around with high quality plate armor at least. And if all else fails it's still quite a chunk of valuable metal. Absolutely. Mail is fairly generic in my experience, or at least unfitted mail is pretty forgiving. Munitions grade plate armour is also one-size-fits-most. I do not know how well brigandines and coats-of-plates need to fit, but quite a lot of looted armour will still be usable. Interestingly, arming coats are pretty unforgiving, and gambesons spacious enough to be one-size-fits-most will often be too bulky to wear in combination with other pieces of armour. One problem I came across when I first bought a bevor was that every sallet helmet I tried on caught on the bevor and stopped me from turning my head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
As a plate armor aficionado and owner, I've come to the depressing realization that with Sallet type helms and matching Bevors, head turning was apparently low on the totem pole of requirements for protection. Early 16th century stuff started incorporating articulated neck joint on occasion that would provide protection and head swivel mobility, but before that (barring any of the rarer English iron collars and their associated ilk) you either chose neck/throat protection at the expense of head swivel, or eschewed the protection in favor of better visibility/situational awareness. Of course there were always alternatives, and certainty in the first half of the 15th century one had a couple other options other than the Sallet to choose from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Could there be a reason behind preventing the neck from moving? Maybe its a feature that helps prevent the neck from snapping back after a hit to the head like modern motorbike helmets?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Could just be limited demand for neck mobility given that any gap in the neck is a potentially fatal vulnerability, the helmet MUST be a separate piece and you need mobility in both the vertical and horizontal axis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:As a plate armor aficionado and owner, I've come to the depressing realization that with Sallet type helms and matching Bevors, head turning was apparently low on the totem pole of requirements for protection. Early 16th century stuff started incorporating articulated neck joint on occasion that would provide protection and head swivel mobility, but before that (barring any of the rarer English iron collars and their associated ilk) you either chose neck/throat protection at the expense of head swivel, or eschewed the protection in favor of better visibility/situational awareness. Of course there were always alternatives, and certainty in the first half of the 15th century one had a couple other options other than the Sallet to choose from. So as a person who dreams of owning a suit of plate for *reasons*, is it generally the kind of thing you can build up piece by piece or do you need to buy the full suit at once to get anything that fits together?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
You can build piece by piece but it'll never fit as well as a bespoke armour will. Just pretend you've looted all your armour!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Could there be a reason behind preventing the neck from moving? Maybe its a feature that helps prevent the neck from snapping back after a hit to the head like modern motorbike helmets? Definitely with jousting helmets such as Frogmouths. With battlefield helmets, less so: bascinets typically just had mail over the neck. With my bevor and trying on sallets I could move my head back without any trouble - so the stuff that didn't allow me to turn my head would not have protected me against that. DandyLion posted:As a plate armor aficionado and owner, I've come to the depressing realization that with Sallet type helms and matching Bevors, head turning was apparently low on the totem pole of requirements for protection. Early 16th century stuff started incorporating articulated neck joint on occasion that would provide protection and head swivel mobility, but before that (barring any of the rarer English iron collars and their associated ilk) you either chose neck/throat protection at the expense of head swivel, or eschewed the protection in favor of better visibility/situational awareness. Of course there were always alternatives, and certainty in the first half of the 15th century one had a couple other options other than the Sallet to choose from. Thanks for that. I will look into this more. I am somewhat surprised that I've been looking into armour for a while and have not heard this before(I thought it was more to do with me picking cheap armour), but it is definitely worth some more research. EDIT: it's looking so far like you're right. My friend with the beautifully light armour (shown below) finds that he can't turn his head with the bevor up, but has no problem with the bevor lowered. However, that armour is otherwise an extremely mobile set and probably has more neck movements than most others out there. Rabhadh posted:You can build piece by piece but it'll never fit as well as a bespoke armour will. Just pretend you've looted all your armour! Exactly, or that it was cheap munitions armour, or a second-hand gift from a mentor and so on. EDIT: A friend of mine has a beautiful set of armour he is showing off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN911OjPQ7E Railtus fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
It took Batman over 20 years to get a suit where he could turn his head, and that poo poo was made of rubber.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Could there be a reason behind preventing the neck from moving? Maybe its a feature that helps prevent the neck from snapping back after a hit to the head like modern motorbike helmets? Your assumption is correct. I've done some melee tourney's on horseback, using wooden clubs (just as historic examples demonstrate), and while you're usually not going to be damaging the armor, the concussive force of a blow is pretty staggering, especially with the weight and speed of a horse adding to the impact force on a charge. The most effective target is the head in these type of tournaments (for obvious reason, a person is more likely to submit when they've been concussed or stunned), and a good hit to the helmet can concuss or otherwise incapacitate the target pretty quickly. In the cases where the helm is not anchored or secured in some way to the breasplate (or at the very least wedged against metal that is anchored to the breasplate, as is the case with the sallet and bevor), a lot of the force can be transferred to the targets head and neck, causing whiplash (or in even more comical cases, can spin the helm around so that it ends up sideways or backwards). Helmets like the great bascinet (which were fully anchored to the breasplate) let you almost shrug off head hits, since the steels absorbs all the force by channeling it down into the breasplate (its in essence a mark V diving helm). I'll be the first to admit though, despite the superior protection, not being able to look down or side to side while on horseback is a very unsettling limitation, and personally I'll take vision and situational awareness over extreme protection in this case (I'd rather see whats going on and actively avoid it than not see because I'm invulnerable to it). For those looking to get into plate armor, let me make one recommendation. Don't waste money on the less expensive pieces of munition grade armor that isn't fitted. It is far better to save your money till you can afford to get a fitted custom harness. An unfitted harness is as much a hindrance as it is a benefit (not to mention dangerous for whatever you think you'll be safe doing in it). While you can certainly have an armorer make you a custom suit piecemeal as your funds allow, I would strongly caution against purchasing cheap 'one-size-fits-all' armor or even someone else's used harness (unless they happen to be a biological double of yourself). Also, if funds allow, get it made out of hardened spring steel and not mild steel or stainless. Both the latter options are too heavy for the right protection level, and too soft at the right weight level. 50 lbs of truly protective armor is way more useful and historically accurate than 100 lbs of cheap stainless or mild steel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
This video on knights armour 1330 - 1450 is pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
Phew, 42 pages. Two questions: First, crossposting something from the HEMA thread: Since I.33's illustration depicts a priest, a male student and a woman, I've been wondering how widespread was fencing across the classes and genders? Was it still just a noble thing for noblemen, or did even smelly peasants practise swordsmanship for self-defence? (Yes, yes, peasants weren't smelly.) Second, does the archetype of an adventuring knight-errant have any historical basis? In general, did people travel much in the medieval times?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:It was traditional for a studying craftsman to spend 7 years as an apprentice and 7 years as a journeyman before being accepted into the craftsman's guild. Presumably knights used the same time schedule because it followed the widely accepted custom. Considering the average lifespan of a medieval person (in the dark ages) was like... 35-40, then wouldnt that mean there would be very few masters around? Unless the apprentice ship started from childhood?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:Considering the average lifespan of a medieval person (in the dark ages) was like... 35-40, then wouldnt that mean there would be very few masters around? Unless the apprentice ship started from childhood? The average lifespan may have been 35-40, but that's because the majority of children did not live very long. I remember reading somewhere that if your average person survived until adulthood, they would typically live until their 60s or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:Considering the average lifespan of a medieval person (in the dark ages) was like... 35-40, then wouldnt that mean there would be very few masters around? Unless the apprentice ship started from childhood? That's a misconception addressed repeatedly before. People had similar maximum ages, once they made it out of their teens they could reasonably expect to live to 60s-70s. The problem was high child mortality dragging the average down. EDIT: Aside from injury and disease complications, where treatment is limited. veekie fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Peasants weren't smelly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
I'm an idiot.
Smoking Crow fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Why once a year? Why bathe at all if you're only going to smell good one day out of the year?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Most people bathed once a year and peasants had to do manual farm work. Yes, they smelled really bad. In fact, one of the reasons Muslims weren't trusted was because they bathed regularly. People bathed way more than once a year, no one likes smelling bad. They had water and soap and stuff guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:People bathed way more than once a year, no one likes smelling bad. They had water and soap and stuff guys. nm, i'm an idiot disregard what i said Smoking Crow fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Cities smelled really bad because tossing poo poo onto the street was a real thing. Also, animals were dragging poo poo around and you can't keep them from pooping where they wanted. Animal poop in cities remained a problem, and probably got worse, until the automobile became more common.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Cities smelled really bad because tossing poo poo onto the street was a real thing. Also, animals were dragging poo poo around and you can't keep them from pooping where they wanted. Diseases spread from horse dung killed thousands of people in New York City. The automobile was heralded as an end to pollution. I understand that medieval people washed themselves much more than we think, and if they didn't have enough water to bathe in they could still scrape themselves clean or wash with small basins of water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Yeah, people bathed. For instance, the city of Bath in Somerset was known for its hot springs enouh to eventually get named after them in the late 800s. On the other side of Europe, the Finns had invented the sauna by then. It was also mentioned early in the thread how vikings would bathe every Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
How did public baths decline anyway? It seems like at one point they were pretty popular and then people switched to bathing at home instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Cities smelled really bad because tossing poo poo onto the street was a real thing. Also, animals were dragging poo poo around and you can't keep them from pooping where they wanted. "Stadtluft macht frei" also has an ironic undertone. Anyway, that stuff was more regulated that you think. There's areas in the city where dumping your potty out of the window is prohibited or limited to certain daytimes, public cesspits that need to be covered at night or sidewalks around them that needed to kept free of ice, so that nobody walking home after a visit to the inn drowns. You also have guys picking up the animal poop and carting it out of the city. Poop isn't the only sanitary problem. The cities are mostly arranged around a church with a cemetry right around it. Where I live, there's a number of old houses from the 14th and 15th century with larger central yards where there's usually a well. You can find these just about anywhere around the city center. So you have cesspits and a well used cemetry making GBS threads up your water supply. Oh yea, and people making GBS threads on the streets when nature calls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
veekie posted:How did public baths decline anyway? It seems like at one point they were pretty popular and then people switched to bathing at home instead. Jesus
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:There's areas in the city where dumping your potty out of the window is prohibited or limited to certain daytimes, public cesspits that need to be covered at night or sidewalks around them that needed to kept free of ice, so that nobody walking home after a visit to the inn drowns This is it. This is where government infringements on our freedom started. Resist the Obama conspiracy--pour your poo poo directly onto the street! e: Are there any sources on marginal areas during the middle ages? Places like Scotland or Estonia or Finland, areas that had hostile environments with relatively few resources where the major (and more literate) powers didn't have much influence? Ireland was a minor state with a shitton of monasteries--how much of the monks' writings survive? I'm talking about secular, day-to-day stuff rather than religious tracts. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:e: Are there any sources on marginal areas during the middle ages? Places like Scotland or Estonia or Finland, areas that had hostile environments with relatively few resources where the major (and more literate) powers didn't have much influence? The history prof I've studied under always made a point to note that if you're lazy and want to be an expert, get into North European medieval history, because you can read all primary sources within a week. So, there's very little stuff from medieval Finland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 10:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The history prof I've studied under always made a point to note that if you're lazy and want to be an expert, get into North European medieval history, because you can read all primary sources within a week. So, there's very little stuff from medieval Finland. This castle burning down in 1697 probably has a lot to do with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Ireland was a minor state with a shitton of monasteries--how much of the monks' writings survive? I'm talking about secular, day-to-day stuff rather than religious tracts. Alekanderu posted:This castle burning down in 1697 probably has a lot to do with that. Similiarily, the Shelling of the Four Courts destroyed a lot of the medieval Irish records.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
This might be off subject but is there any good books for learning about the islamic states?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
How many people do you need to kill with a lance before you unlock the highest prestige?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
SeXReX posted:How many people do you need to kill with a lance before you unlock the highest prestige? Depends on the lance and what class you're putting points in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Can you tell me something about the Rus between the decline of Kiev and the Mongol Invasion (ca. 1100 to 1250) How cohesive were the Rus at this time? how far did they push into their northern and eastern frontier? I'm also specifically interested in some of the lesser known entities like Tmutarakan or Galicia-Volhynia, the ones you can find hardly any sources on anywhere. If I read any history on the topic, this period always gets skipped because what came before and after is apparently much more important. Also I was always under the impression that without the Mongol Invasion, Vladimir-Suzdal would have been THE principality to unite the Rus again. Is that a valid assumption or should I rather put my money on Muscovy anyways. Or Novgorod? Galicia-Volhynia? Chernigov?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Yeah, people bathed. For instance, the city of Bath in Somerset was known for its hot springs enouh to eventually get named after them in the late 800s. On the other side of Europe, the Finns had invented the sauna by then. It was also mentioned early in the thread how vikings would bathe every Saturday. Fun fact, Saturday in Norwegian is called Lørdag, based of the old norse word laugardagr wich basically meant bath day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
ButtHate posted:Can you tell me something about the Rus between the decline of Kiev and the Mongol Invasion (ca. 1100 to 1250) Honestly, I know most about the period of the "Mongol Yoke", because it's when Kulikovo happens (which loving RULES) and I was quite enthralled by the Zadonshchina in high school. However, with my comparatively limited knowledge I can tell you that there was a central problem to any attempt at Rus' reunification, which was the system of inheritance which did not allow the accumulation of complete territories amongst sons. While in its own microcosm this is arguably the fairest and most equitable way to do things, when faced with a foreign power like the Tatars it results in a lot of small, squabbling principalities who can never rally their forces. Not that I believe Rus' would have been able to defeat Subutai at that point, but that's another argument. Given these political difficulties I actually think Galicia-Volhynia had the best chance at reunification. Novgorod, like Venice, was a merchant republic and thus less concerned about controlling territory unless it was for immediate economic gain. Vladimir-Suzdal is a good thought, with excellent princes like Vsevolod the Big Nest, but again the problem of dividing inheritance becomes an issue. Because, however, Galich had more contact with the West, where notions of primogeniture were growing, I think they would have been able to keep the land together and, consequently, win out in the end. Of course, this assumes the Polaks and Litvaks stay a political mess or are kept under control, since Galich is high on their lists of enemies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:However, with my comparatively limited knowledge I can tell you that there was a central problem to any attempt at Rus' reunification, which was the system of inheritance which did not allow the accumulation of complete territories amongst sons. While in its own microcosm this is arguably the fairest and most equitable way to do things, when faced with a foreign power like the Tatars it results in a lot of small, squabbling principalities who can never rally their forces. My knowledge is a bit rusty as well, but as I recall there were pretty much nonstop internal unrest because of that fact. Yaroslav the Wise had something like 6 brothers, and he killed or imprisoned 4 of them by the time he attained the throne (this apparently wasn't an unusual situation, either).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 23:02
|
|
