|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:read the post I quoted. Welp, I'm an idiot.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
I am also a dumb rear end. Templars, Teutonics ; I was being dumb and got my knights that start with "T" confused. Thanks for the correction! My point stands that they got their asses handed to them. Suck it, Livonians. VVVV : Well, I guess you know what you've got to do, now ain't you? 
Xiahou Dun fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I am also a dumb rear end. I live in a city called Livonia in the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I am also a dumb rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I live in a city called Livonia in the US. The worst Michigan city, except maybe Holland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Beamed posted:The worst Michigan city, except maybe Holland. Someone's never been to Flint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Beamed posted:The worst Michigan city, except maybe Holland. But Holland has my favorite Go-Cart track!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Beamed posted:The worst Michigan city, except maybe Holland. Most boring maybe, not worst. Flint, Inkster, northside Kalamazoo, downriver in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:A remark about Bavarians went here. It's gone now. Was it about how we're the best at being German? Because that's 100% true. You guys don't even have Leberkaas. 420 ; drink beer and hate on immigrants every day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Looky here guys, we got a german who celebrates 420. What a big surprise. What's a german's favorite big gun? The 88.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
I could actually do with learning more about the Livonian Order; most of my experience with them has been the Paradox series, I'm ashamed to say - were they another German order of Knights who just went crusading in the Baltic? And what was their relation with Riga?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
So what sort of combat doctrine did the Teutonics use because whenever I've seen them portrayed its always been a "beat you opponent to a bloody pulp with the nearest blunt object" sort of group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Phew, 42 pages. Two questions: Sorry for the delay, my computer was being repaired. It was definitely not just a noble thing, though it did cost money. Italian sources tend to deal a lot with street-fights and urban self-defence (hence stuff like cloak fighting), and there were fencing guilds that did not seem to be restricted to nobility. So it was possible to get training. Across the genders, I do not know for sure. Talhoffer’s fightbooks include a judicial duel with a woman (using a rock in a veil like some kind of improvised flail) against a guy using a wooden mace while in a waist-deep hole. However, I’m not sure which combatant the fightbook was aimed for. One reason I expect fencing knowledge is not that class-limited is the relative popularity of swords. Early on I mentioned a levy called by Duke Albrecht in the 1420s that required everyone to have a “sword or knife” – presumably meaning messer or falchion like blade for knife – so quite a lot of non-noble warriors had swords. I would expect any career-warrior to have a reasonable amount of fencing skill. Historical knight-errant archetypes probably have a limited historical basis, though I am not sure how far it counts: quite a few landless knights would need to seek out service with a lord, and would reasonably travel working as a mercenary or going from tournament to tournament. There were hastiludes (fighting sports) like the passage of arms, where knights would challenge each other – off the top of my head I think it only really applies to limited circumstances, but it would provide some basis on a superficial level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Phew, 42 pages. Two questions: What an amazing thread this one is, really. I can mostly talk about italian fencing since it's the one that i'm actively studying, still didn't focus on european manuscripts. It's something that changes within the ages, to be honest. Fior de Liberi 's "Flos Duellatorum" is something that's aimed at the Knight mostly, the one who could afford the sword and a master able to teach it. Trying to learn something from it alone is complicated nowadays, for the paesant it was almost impossible. It's almost all written with rhetorical figures and symbolic images, nothing a mere land worker could comprehend. Two centuries later, Francesco Antonio Marcelli writes his "Regole della scherma insegnate da Lelio e Titta Marcelli, scritte da Francesco Antonio Marcelli, figlio e Nipote e Maestro di scherma a Roma. Opera non meno utile che necessaria a chiunque desidera far profitto in questa Professione." that, translated, becomes "Rules of the fencing taught by Lelio and Titta Marcelli, written by Francesco Antonio Marcelli, son and nephew and Fencing master in Rome. Text not less useful to whoever wants to make profit out of this profession". Even if, from the title, it might seem that it's aimed for the fencing master who wanted to get better, it's actually a much easier book than the Flos, and it talks about a lot of street fights and self defense, as Railtus said. You can find quick extracts on how to fight with rapier and cape and rapier and torchlight, things you might have when walking in the city. Also, the social class change that sees the bourgeoise get more and more money is an explanation for this, since now a lot of people could afford lessons/a sword.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Could someone direct me to a solid monograph about the Second Barons' War and Simon de Montfort? It's something I've been wanting to know more about and I thought you guys might know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
This is kind of a general question so I'm not sure there's a singular answer, but does anyone know why in so many wars people would siege every castle in their way, instead of just going around them? Like in the first crusade for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Crusade why did they attack all those other cities along the way, instead of just going straight for Jerusalem? Were they just worried about getting flanked? Similar things happened in other crusades as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
ZaronYeras posted:This is kind of a general question so I'm not sure there's a singular answer, but does anyone know why in so many wars people would siege every castle in their way, instead of just going around them? Like in the first crusade for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Crusade why did they attack all those other cities along the way, instead of just going straight for Jerusalem? Were they just worried about getting flanked? Similar things happened in other crusades as well. Because those castles probably held garrisons that would go out and ruin your supply lines, join up with other enemy forces or even directly attack your invading army in the rear. The alternative to taking a castle would be to leave behind a large enough force to keep the defenders bottled up, and splitting your forces is often not a good idea in general. Not to mention the fact that if you want to actually occupy an area rather than just ravage it, taking and holding the castles is an absolute necessity. A third and also very important factor is that castles/cities give you ample opportunity for looting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
How big a force could a typical castle hold to harass invaders if left unattended?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
veekie posted:How big a force could a typical castle hold to harass invaders if left unattended? That actually begs the question because there really isn't a standard-sized castle. There's the little ringforts that used to carpet European countrysides, all the way to the massive city walls that could stretch for kilometers. How big is a typical castle? Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Well the question changes then. How big a force do they need to hold so that they can't be safely bypassed? Presumably whatever force they have need to be able to harass at least, and be able to pull back before the enemy army kicks the harassing garrison's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
There's even more to it than that...castles were built to hold territory. Often that territory was valuable for some reason...either it's crucial farmland, or it's a major trade hub, port, or crossroads, something like that. So the whole reason you're fighting is to take it, there is no "bypass the castle" plan because it's right in the middle of your goal. In the case of the Crusades, one of the Europeans' goals was to secure a pilgrimage route. That falls apart if your pilgrims have to sneak past a castle every couple of days. Someone also mentioned looting...this is also hugely important because in many cases this is literally how you paid your soldiers. They're not going to be happy about marching past that big walled paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
You also absolutely can't bypass a castle if your supply train will go anywhere near it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Doh, forgot about the supply train. I guess unless you're just there to loot and burn things, you'd have to take the castle on if it has any garrison at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
In the first Crusade they were (according to Asbridge) securing supply lines, as the Byzantines had promised them support in terms of food and engineering supplies, etc. There was also a regular stream of crusaders straging in late from Europe (many of whom were caught and killed by Turkish forces anyway). There was also an understanding that in return for byzantine support and advice, the crusaders would capture territory on the way and return it to the ERE. communism bitch fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
During the Crusades, the Muslims had significant problems with sieges, why was that? I know i read the Abassids, while a nominal state at this point had really competent siege engineers (I forgot the source so someone help me out, is it true that Genghis Khan had Abassid wall climbers help in the siege of some chinese cities? if yes doesn't that mean they had a tradition at least that goes back to the crusades?), yet the actions of Turks and Arabs were basically demolishing any walls as soon as they defeated the crusaders, could there be a lack of communications with the Abassids? Also i haven't ever read any real critique of the Third Crusade, AFAIK everyone packed their bags and went back home once Saladin and Richard started sort of warming up to each other and sending letters and gifts, could that be really it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Everyone has problems at sieging good fortifications. The reason for tearing down castles is that your enemies can't occupy them again, and that the governors or vassals you appoint to rule the area can't rebel so easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:(I forgot the source so someone help me out, is it true that Genghis Khan had Abassid wall climbers help in the siege of some chinese cities? I have never heard this, and I've read a lot on the Mongols. What the hell is a wall-climber? A machine or a person who's really good at climbing walls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Everyone has problems at sieging good fortifications. The reason for tearing down castles is that your enemies can't occupy them again, and that the governors or vassals you appoint to rule the area can't rebel so easily. Yeah, the Mongols swept from Northern China to the West before shifting south. So the presence of siege engineers from Islamic territories isn't unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Yeah, you know how on many maps where you see an attacking force represented by an arrow. It helps if you imagine that all the food, equipment, wives, prostitutes, general staff and other sundry logistical stuff is represented by the tail and the army by the arrowhead. You need to make sure your tail is not going to be constantly ganked by enemy forces screwing up your strong but heavily dependant arrow head. And it really doesn't take much, especially if the 'gankers' for want of a better word, had a nice secure holding they can sit inside and wait for the washer women to trundle by. 20 dudes on horses can be in and out before any sort of defence force can muster. So you have a choice. Either you defend your whole baggage train, which is retarded and impossible if you actually want to fight anyone further up front and encourages your enemy to mass troops and hit you hard at the front and roll you up. Or you accept your supply is going to be non-existent, which is hella risky, you either win a victory so crushing the enemy concedes in a very quick time-frame or you are totally hosed as your men have no supplies, can only eat when they can find or carry, your wounded are either left to die or burdening your fighting men and you have no hope of reinforcement. You also leave yourself vulnerable to attack from behind as your enemy has a far more complete information picture of what's going on and you are effectivly blind on all sides. Or you could take a bit more time and siege down at least the key strong points on your route towards or main goal. Allowing you to station a much smaller force to protect your baggage train. Keeping lines of information and communication open behind you and allowing a known safe path back in which you can retreat and regroup should things go badly. Also strong points are where people keep valuables. Valuables are good when it comes to winning a war\stopping your men stringing you up because it sucks and they want to go home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:"ganked" "gankers" I love this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
veekie posted:Doh, forgot about the supply train. I guess unless you're just there to loot and burn things, you'd have to take the castle on if it has any garrison at all. It should be important to distinguish a baggage train from supply lines. While nearly every serious medieval host (the exception being those made up entirely of cavalry, like Louis VI's at Bremule) had a baggage train of some kind, actual supply lines were much rarer, and are usually only seen in areas where foraging locally would be extremely difficult, either because of risk of piecemeal defeat when your forces are dispersed, or because of a lack of local supplies (bad harvest, enemy destroyed crops before invasion, &c). While harassment from bypassed castles was a concern, it was not necessarily vital to take the nearest first, especially if the invading host was large and had been well-provisioned before the start of the campaign. Castle garrisons could be very small indeed, and that seems to have been typical for the English castles near the Scottish border in the 12th century. Wark held 9 knights and 40 sergeants when William the Lion besieged it, and they held out against him until the English field army drove him off. With this in mind we see deep raids into English territory, such as those made by William the Lion and David I in 1173-74 and 1138 respectively. To give an idea of the depth they could go, David ravaged as far as Durham after Easter in 1138 without any serious opposition. The reality of this, however, is that these either were exclusively raiding expeditions or ravaging prior to a return north to lay siege to a major border fortress. The reason for this is exactly as Godholio has said: castles and knights within them were how medieval governments exercised control over territory. It is no good to have an isolated, unsupported castle in the middle of enemy territory. Cast_No_Shadow posted:So you have a choice. Either you defend your whole baggage train, which is retarded and impossible if you actually want to fight anyone further up front and encourages your enemy to mass troops and hit you hard at the front and roll you up. OK there's a lot in your post that is wrong but this seems to be at the where it all originates from. Protecting the baggage train was hugely important, since the core of much of medieval warfare was control of foodstuffs. With that in mind, you have no idea what you're talking about. Nikephoros Phocas, in his Praecepta Militaria EXPLICITLY, with diagrams and everything, shows us that the marching formation should have cavalry on all sides surrounding the baggage train, which has infantry with it. Richard the Lionheart, on his march down from Acre also protected his baggage train from all sides with infantry and cavalry. This served him well at the Battle of Arsuf. While the baggage train would sometimes trail behind, this would typically be the result of restrictive terrain, incautious commanders or a battle which brought the majority of men to the field and left the baggage lightly guarded. Thus you have things like the assault on the baggage train at Agincourt, or the arrival of the baggage train guards and campfollowers at Bannockburn which the English mistook for real reinforcements. I'd also like to address this: quote:You also leave yourself vulnerable to attack from behind as your enemy has a far more complete information picture of what's going on and you are effectivly blind on all sides. Invading armies were not 'effectively blind on all sides' if they were led competently. Thus Count Helias la Fleche, besieging Le Mans in 1099, heard of William Rufus' arrival in Normandy well before the king could reach him. He received this news early enough that, after quitting the siege, he had enough time to burn his lands and destroy some of his own castles before William's host could arrive and take them. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Wow awesome post. I stand corrected and educated!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I love this. It's a term from online gaming that refers to a high-level player attacking a defenceless one. I suppose it applies well to real military conflicts when you consider how many people have the role of supplying the fighting force rather than being the fighters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I have never heard this, and I've read a lot on the Mongols. What the hell is a wall-climber? A machine or a person who's really good at climbing walls? A person, usually hammering in nails fastened to a rope to create some sort of ladder of sorts so the other troops can climb it as well. the JJ posted:Yeah, the Mongols swept from Northern China to the West before shifting south. So the presence of siege engineers from Islamic territories isn't unlikely. Its a little bit more complicated too, I kind of remember my "source" now, it was a discussion i had with a friend of mine from China and i'm guessing he quoted a chinese source most likely, two things stood out, the climbers and the "Hui Hui Poi" (which is apparently the chinese word for Muslim Cannon), so if anyone with english sources could sort of dig and find out anything that would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:A person, usually hammering in nails fastened to a rope to create some sort of ladder of sorts so the other troops can climb it as well. Yeah, dunno about 'wall climbers,' but siege experts were a thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:A person, usually hammering in nails fastened to a rope to create some sort of ladder of sorts so the other troops can climb it as well. It doesn't seem like the kind of technique you'd really have to export guys for, or that would be hard to come up with on your own. I also don't know that I've ever heard of this in any source--wouldn't it be defeated by having a simple overhang?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It doesn't seem like the kind of technique you'd really have to export guys for, or that would be hard to come up with on your own. I also don't know that I've ever heard of this in any source--wouldn't it be defeated by having a simple overhang? I was under the impression most medieval (ie, pre-trace italienne) sieges were conducted by tossing flaming stuff and big rocks over the walls and smashing the town inside while starving them out. Trying to climb the wall...yikes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Its a little bit more complicated too, I kind of remember my "source" now, it was a discussion i had with a friend of mine from China and i'm guessing he quoted a chinese source most likely, two things stood out, the climbers and the "Hui Hui Poi" (which is apparently the chinese word for Muslim Cannon), so if anyone with english sources could sort of dig and find out anything that would be cool. The Hui (回, Huí) are a Chinese Muslim ethnic minority. "Poi"===> pao ===> 炮 means "cannon". No idea what the middle bit could be though. If I drink at it hard enough, maybe fire? (火, huo) I'm guessing pretty hard, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I was under the impression most medieval (ie, pre-trace italienne) sieges were conducted by tossing flaming stuff and big rocks over the walls and smashing the town inside while starving them out. Trying to climb the wall...yikes. Well, ladders and toweres were both actually used, too, but I have no idea of the frequency. But there's a shitton of siege methods: loving up their water supply, mining under the walls, having someone on the inside to let you in through a postern gate, building a giant fire next to the walls, diverting a river, etc. I don't think that 'actually climbing up the sheer side of the wall' would b every high on the list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
Could be to supplement ladder assaults maybe? Establish an alternate route up the walls that weren't as easy to remove as ladders, and more portable than siege towers. I'd bet until people could just blow the walls away, just about anything that could make a siege easier to break was attempted, however ridiculous it seemed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:23
|
|