|
DandyLion posted:God if only. Correct I am not a historian, or even a particularly proficient writer. I get pleasantly excited when 'Historians' believe they understand something without practical application. I'ts easier to speculate than to scientifically test for the validity of something. There's a role for fighting in order to develop ideas, but there's nothing scientific about it and it certainly isn't conclusive. InspectorBloor posted:I'm having a deja vu of whitebelts argueing which sporty martial art is better. It's all jacking off unless you fight no holds barred. Well there's a lot more HEMA folks than ARMA, so I'd say that it's pretty likely the ARMA would get overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers, if nothing else. 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Feb 4, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
I don't think you know what "scientific" means. Anecdotal evidence without controls is kind of the opposite. Also  at trying to sword-splain Rodgrigo Diaz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Scientifically testing would mean people killing each other with swords, spears and maces. I could imagine a tv-show with celebrities doing just that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Look I've seen Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV and all I learned is that samurai would kill vikings and that a pirate could beat a knight 1v1. They proved it with science and computers and by hitting dummies with their swords.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I don't think you know what "scientific" means. Anecdotal evidence without controls is kind of the opposite. I'd rather 'spar or physically demonstrate' under any circumstances to prove my point than verbally argue over it. The methodology used to determine efficacy and accuracy of a technique is to bring the conditions as close to real as possible while under as many safe constraints as is practical. I don't have to kill someone with a sword to prove that I could have. If we sparred and you couldn't actually make contact with your weapon on my body, is that experience wasted because it wasn't for real? Or can you derive from that some useful data?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's a role for fighting in order to develop ideas, but there's nothing scientific about it and it certainly isn't conclusive. Also dismissing historians (w/ scare quotes since many of us only analyse documents like chumps) when you are trying to interpret something historically is really fuckin stupid. Xiahou Dun posted:Also I appreciate the compliment but seriously don't do this. Treating me like a font of knowledge is a mistake. I always try to contextualize my posts and have been super wrong about some things before, and swords are no exception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I'd rather 'spar or physically demonstrate' under any circumstances to prove my point than verbally argue over it. But if all of ARMA and all of HEMA fought, then ARMA would totally lose. So what could ARMA possibly know? Or is relying entirely on combat to settle academic disputes absurd? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
The keyboard is mightier than the sword.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also dismissing historians (w/ scare quotes since many of us only analyse documents like chumps) when you are trying to interpret something historically is really fuckin stupid. I believe you misquoted this (I'm pretty sure this was directed at my earlier post). You are correct, it is stupid of me to dismiss historians. After reading what I wrote there it sounds petulant. Apologies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But if all of ARMA and all of HEMA fought, then ARMA would totally lose. So what could ARMA possibly know? I am implying one-on-one fights to test out techniques, so it doesn't have to be a membership numbers game. ARMA has hosted events with other HEMA groups whom we disagree with for the sake of either becoming educated to whatever we don't understand, or to educate other groups as to what they misunderstand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Or is relying entirely on combat to settle academic disputes absurd? Actually, combat would be quite refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I am implying one-on-one fights to test out techniques, so it doesn't have to be a membership numbers game. ARMA has hosted events with other HEMA groups whom we disagree with for the sake of either becoming educated to whatever we don't understand, or to educate other groups as to what they misunderstand. But that's the same kind of patently ahistorical behavior that you're accusing HEMA folks of. Two warriors armed and armored, going at it on the field of valor is something that happens at faires. Don't you know your history? The War of the Roses wasn't a duel. If the only valid test of technique is a no-holds-barred fight (which it isn't), this is the reality of that kind of fight. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But that's the same kind of patently ahistorical behavior that you're accusing HEMA folks of. Two warriors armed and armored, going at it on the field of valor is something that happens at faires. This is not really correct. A lot of the surviving manuscripts do not deal directly with wartime combat, but instead with judicial duelling and personal defence. The Talhoffer manuscripts especially show fighting in armour that is very explicitly given in the context of a judicial duel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But that's the same kind of patently ahistorical behavior that you're accusing HEMA folks of. Two warriors armed and armored, going at it on the field of valor is something that happens at faires. Don't you know your history? The War of the Roses wasn't a duel. If the only valid test of technique is a no-holds-barred fight (which it isn't), this is the reality of that kind of fight. I don't believe it is. There are many references to dueling with longswords in the manuals. Master Fiore states that 3 times in his life he participated in unarmored duels with a longsword, and 3 times he emerged victorious and unscathed. /beaten ^
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
You mistake something like a duel for a fight with no holds barred.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
double post
Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is not really correct. A lot of the surviving manuscripts do not deal directly with wartime combat, but instead with judicial duelling and personal defence. The Talhoffer manuscripts especially show fighting in armour that is very explicitly given in the context of a judicial duel. Those judicial duels would also happen at public faires. It's not like they were conducted in secret. That would completely defeat their purpose. DandyLion posted:I don't believe it is. There are many references to dueling with longswords in the manuals. Master Fiore states that 3 times in his life he participated in unarmored duels with a longsword, and 3 times he emerged victorious and unscathed. InspectorBloor posted:You mistake something like a duel for a fight with no holds barred. And yeah, putting in caveats and handicaps undermines the whole idea of fighting as being the only true test of technique. If you open the door to that, then you're admitting that there needs to be a more methodical approach than simply pulling out swords and seeing who comes out on top.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Those judicial duels would also happen at public faires. Yes, but not exclusively, which is what I took to be your interpretation. Really, the adjudicating nobleman need be the only one to witness it. The duel between Guy of Steenvoorde and Herman the Iron of April 1127, for example, occurred at Count William of Ypres' manor at Reningelst, which is not a terribly public venue compared to the city of Ypres herself, where the provost Bertulf had been put to death earlier that same day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
I don't know what this weird group slapfight is about, so I'll ask a question: How much information do we have about martial arts with percussive weapons(maces hammers etc.) and how different would they look from more commonly known martial arts with edged weapons? I'm assuming they exist, but I don't really know anything about how those weapons were used besides the obvious 'hit enemy, preferably in the head', so if there's anything that might be counter-intuitive about their use I'd like to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:God if only. Correct I am not a historian, or even a particularly proficient writer. I get pleasantly excited when 'Historians' believe they understand something without practical application. I'ts easier to speculate than to scientifically test for the validity of something. You guys don't get it; HEMA is a primary source for historical swordfighting methods. A primary source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:I don't know what this weird group slapfight is about, so I'll ask a question: How much information do we have about martial arts with percussive weapons(maces hammers etc.) and how different would they look from more commonly known martial arts with edged weapons? I'm assuming they exist, but I don't really know anything about how those weapons were used besides the obvious 'hit enemy, preferably in the head', so if there's anything that might be counter-intuitive about their use I'd like to know. Specifically counter-intuitive? The only thing I can think of is due to the center of gravity of most bludgeoning weapons being a fair bit out from the guard, one quickly exhausts himself using full strength/arm swings. Therefore I've found a lot greater efficacy and longevity by utilizing motion at the wrist, preferably keeping the mace or whatever swinging to prevent fatigue by constantly arresting the motion with your own strength/energy. When I do mounted combat with wooden behourds (think wooden club) I only ever swing fully with my arm when i'm sure it will connect with an opponent on a vulnerable location (head mostly). Otherwise i'll usually attempt several wrist slings to the sides of the body and face while at the same time binding/winding with my opponents behourd. I can't say that I've adapted this directly from a historical teaching, although the preference for utilizing wrist motion over full arm motion is something that has been mentioned regarding arming swords in a couple manuals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
A counterintuitive thing about blunt weapons? The forms (at least as taught by the Italian fencing master Fiore) are surprisingly close to armoured longsword techniques. After all, the principles of power generation and not getting stabbed are the same no matter what kind of tool you hold in your hand. Obviously you can't cut with a pollaxe, but it doesn't really matter because it's a weapon intended against armour and you can't cut through armour with a sword either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Let's switch the topic a bit. Lately, I wondered if there are surviving excercise regimen for knights? You know, instructions. I saw a few things on Furusiyya in the library and some more vague chapters in the books about Janissaries that I had lent out. That stuff sounds like the training that a world class athlete would do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
The thread had better stop being poo poo directly, or it is going to get closed and you'll have to play sword barbie dress-up somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:What a wonderfully baseless and vacuous reference. I'm not even sure what this really means, or how it is even makes sense. Have you ever done test cutting? DandyLion posted:If someone wants to badmouth my organization, then they can eat a bag of dicks, and so can you sir. First, on test cutting, yes. Does the test cutting I have done have any relevence to whether other people have criticised ARMA? No. I had not referenced my comment because I could not remember Hugh Knight’s name at the time, and the others were just people I know personally and it didn’t feel right using them as sources in this context, especially because I did not know if it was the Woozle effect in action (where Source A, B, C, D & E all say the same thing, but B, C, D are all using a citation from Source A, meaning there are only 2 sources supporting that perspective instead of 5). An example of Hugh Knight’s criticism is here for anyone interested - http://talhoffer.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/myth-of-test-cutting.html - he criticises many of the same things about test cutting that Rodrigo pointed out Clements doing in the videos, and you can check in the comments section to see Hugh Knight’s view of ARMA. A few of his other articles on the subject are rather critical, even contemptuous, of ARMA in general. If you feel that this is me badmouthing your organisation, there is nothing I can do about that. I can't think of any way to avoid badmouthing your organisation if you interpret suggesting other people have disagreed with them on some points as badmouthing. IronicDongz posted:I don't know what this weird group slapfight is about, so I'll ask a question: How much information do we have about martial arts with percussive weapons(maces hammers etc.) and how different would they look from more commonly known martial arts with edged weapons? I'm assuming they exist, but I don't really know anything about how those weapons were used besides the obvious 'hit enemy, preferably in the head', so if there's anything that might be counter-intuitive about their use I'd like to know. On blunt weapons, the pollaxe comes up a lot. It might be more representative of polearms in general though, but many pollaxes include war hammer heads. We do not get much with maces though. Some pollaxe techniques here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY To me it looks quite similar to certain aspects of longsword techniques; half-swording and mordhau have a lot in common, though I would say many of the guard positions would be similar in purpose and intent. Counterintuitive things I can think of: The tail-end of the weapon is used quite extensively. This might not be applicable to a shorter mace, though. Hooking and grappling aid for throws. Not that many large swings. InspectorBloor posted:Let's switch the topic a bit. Lately, I wondered if there are surviving excercise regimen for knights? You know, instructions. Now that I have apparently been badmouthing ARMA, I am now going to use them as a source... http://www.thearma.org/essays/fit/RennFit.htm Like you mention, it sounds like world class athlete stuff. Instructions might be too strong a word, but it does seem descriptive. And the reason to believe they did some very impressive physical training is indicated by the builds of the men here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-gcvq7Vk90 - he discusses the separation of the shoulder-blade, the development of the skeleton on the right arms. Railtus fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
One of the videos by that scholara guy talks about how much harder his students find the rapier classes than the longsword classes. The rapier, which weighed as much as a longsword demands a lot of strength. Rapier fencers use a lot of guard positions and stuff that have you holding a 2-3lb sword at arms length for extended periods, and then slashing and thrusting with it. The Musketeers would have had to have been drat near fitness freaks to do that much rapier fencing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:If someone wants to badmouth my organization, then they can eat a bag of dicks, and so can you sir.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Hey, so I have a thread-related question. So there's this conjecture I'm toying with. The idea is that there's this thing called a "lifestyle warrior", which is a person whose life is dedicated pretty much exclusively to warfare (think European Knights, Janissaries, Ghazis, Mamluks, etc.). My question is this: in the early medieval period, both the Christian and Muslim worlds structured their militaries along similar lines, with nobility serving as "lifestyle warriors" and living up to the image of a heavily armed, trained, dedicated combatant (and political power holder). But then there's a divergence. Two of the standard-bearers of Islam in the late middle ages and early modern era move over to using elite slave soldiers (Janissaries, Mamluks) but Christian Europe never follows suit. Does anyone have insights into why? Is it a round-about way of creating a professional military (similar to how US Army Personnel sign an agreement stating that their bodies are property of the state [please deny this if it is not true; it's something I've heard])? Please correct my heinous misapprehensions too; my area of expertise generally doesn't extend to four-digit years that start with anything less than "18".
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:(similar to how US Army Personnel sign an agreement stating that their bodies are property of the state [please deny this if it is not true; it's something I've heard])? Uh, no, this is not accurate. And I think the answer to your question is fairly simple: slavery in medieval Europe was almost entirely either eradicated or replaced by serfdom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Who'd like to learn about the Battle of Hattin? It's a great example of the problems that arise when an inexperienced commander ignores logistics and bravely charges into a trap. In 1187, the Crusaders had put Jerusalem was under control of a Christian king. King Guy of Jerusalem was in a tricky position, with a number of the nobles under his command contesting his coronation. He was concerned that hesitating in the face of Saladin's army would cost him his fragile grip on the throne. In July, Saladin besieged a fort at Tiberias in an attempt to lure Guy's forces away from the safety of their defences. The Crusaders walked right into a trap, trying to cross fifty kilometres of desert and fight a battle on the other side. Guy had a force of 20,000 men, including 1,500 knights, 3,000 light cavalry. Saladin outnumbered him with a force of 12,000 light cavalry and 18,000 dismounted men. Perhaps Guy, a Frenchman, didn't understand quite how stupid it is to send armoured men across the Judean desert in July. He brought the Jerusalem garrison with him, and felt so confident about this desert jaunt that he brought his treasured True Cross*. The original plan was to take an easy march across the desert and reach Lake Tiberias on the second day. Instead, the Christian army found itself under constant archery attack from Saladin's heavy horsemen. This harassment couldn't hurt the Crusaders, as they wore padded coats capable of stopping arrows. Being forced to march through the sweltering heat in full armour took its own toll, and the Islamic cavalry were wearing gear suited to the desert. On the first night, Guy's army made a dry camp in the desert. On the morning of the second day, the desperate Crusaders realized that Saladin's army was in between them and Lake Tiberias. Saladin had sent his forces behind the Crusaders and captured the spring at Tur'an, the nearest source of water. King Guy decided to march to the well at the Horns of Hattin, where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount**. Under constant harassment and running out of water, they nonetheless reached the twin hills at Hattin and briefly joined battle with Saladin's army. The Muslim troops struggled briefly to keep the Crusaders from the Hattin, but after sun set on the second day of Guy's march the Europeans were making camp at Hattin. It was only after they began pitching tents that someone pointed out enemy cavalry had plugged up the well - Guy had failed to scout the area before sending his troops on their march for water. Sunrise on the third day brought a clear view of Lake Tiberias's glistening waters a few kilometres away to Crusaders who hadn't had a drink in a day of desert heat. It brought a clear view of the massive enemy army outside their camp, and a strong wind exploited by that army, who lit a grass fire to further worsen conditions in the Christian camp. The local army had a series of camel caravans bringing skins of water from the lake to their troops, while the foreigners could only look at the water in the distance. Given a clear view of the lake, Balian of Ibelin was the first to make a desperate charge for the water. He led a few dozen sergeants on horseback in a dash through the enemy army and onward to the lake, becoming one of the few Crusaders to escape the battle. After many dehydrated officers ran for the lake or died trying, the mass of disorganized footsoldiers made a desperate push through Saladin's army. With Guy's knights remaining in camp to defend the "True Cross", almost all of the men on foot were cut down by heavy cavalry. On the mountain where Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers", defending a piece of wood said to come from the crucifixion, Guy made his final stand. His well-equipped knights pushed back Saladin's army repeatedly. Rather than engaging in combat with heavily armoured knights, the attackers could pull back because the Crusaders had nowhere to go. As the day wore on, the lightly armoured Muslims kept well-hydrated while the knights fell from thirst and lack of rest. Saladin's son described the end of the battle: "When the king of the Franks [Guy] was on the hill with that band, they made a formidable charge against the Muslims facing them, so that they drove them back to my father [Saladin]. I looked towards him and he was overcome by grief and his complexion pale. He took hold of his beard and advanced, crying out "Give the lie to the Devil!" The Muslims rallied, returned to the fight and climbed the hill. When I saw that the Franks withdrew, pursued by the Muslims, I shouted for joy, "We have beaten them!" But the Franks rallied and charged again like the first time and drove the Muslims back to my father. He acted as he had done on the first occasion and the Muslims turned upon the Franks and drove them back to the hill. I again shouted, "We have beaten them!" but my father rounded on me and said, "Be quiet! We have not beaten them until that tent [Guy's] falls." As he was speaking to me, the tent fell. The sultan dismounted, prostrated himself in thanks to God Almighty and wept for joy." Saladin's army marched into the Crusaders' camp and took every survivor prisoner. A few notorious soldiers were beheaded, but most were taken prisoner and eventually ransomed back to the Pope. Guy had drained his garrisons to mobilize an army of 20,000, and Saladin soon captured Tiberias and Jerusalem. Exact casualties are unknown, but it was a lopsided affair - estimated around 17,000 dead under Guy, and 2,000 dead under Saladin. * Not actually the True Cross ** Maybe
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Hey, so I have a thread-related question. Bewbies has it right. Slavery was almost gone by around 1000 AD. Even before that the overall sentiment within the Church was “we hate it, but we are just not sure how to get rid of it without all hell breaking loose.” There were some in the church that were pro-slavery, but not enough to lend the system of slavery anywhere near enough legitimacy for a system of slave-soldiers. The principle of slave-soldiers is that they are outside the existing social and political structures. A knight can be made a baron by a feudal overlord such as a duke, not just the king, so a knight can gain personally by participating in political intrigue, infighting or even a coup. A Mamluk or Janissary does not have the same options for personal benefits, instead deriving all their rewards through service to the ruler and thus in theory having little incentive to betray him. In practise it did not always work out that way; the Mamluks eventually formed their own Sultanate and the Janissaries would sometimes ‘exchange’ their master for a better one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Railtus posted:The principle of slave-soldiers is that they are outside the existing social and political structures. A knight can be made a baron by a feudal overlord such as a duke, not just the king, so a knight can gain personally by participating in political intrigue, infighting or even a coup. A Mamluk or Janissary does not have the same options for personal benefits, instead deriving all their rewards through service to the ruler and thus in theory having little incentive to betray him. In practise it did not always work out that way; the Mamluks eventually formed their own Sultanate and the Janissaries would sometimes ‘exchange’ their master for a better one. Janissaries were a standing army, that alone makes them wield political power in a (pre-)modern state. In fact, the Ottoman state was balanced between the power of the Janissaries and the Sipahis (non hereditary land holders). So, naturally, the Agha was an influential man who also controlled access to the sultan, as his men also guarded the gates to the palace. Sometimes the Sultan would get locked in the palace, until he gave in to certain demands. But these plays about palace intrigue and access to the formal source of power are probably the same everywhere. The word slave might lead to wrong assumptions about the status of a Janissary. They're kul, which means royal slaves, they're a part of the Sultan's household. It's more precise to think of them as civil servants of renown who are bound with their life to the state. Also, a part of these men is trained as heavy cavalry, the quapikulu. In it's heyday, the corps picked the cream of the crop of the young men in the Balkans. Usually the 3rd or 4th sons and so on of farmers, etc., the ones that would not inherit their father's land. So naturally, the corps was attractive for men who would otherwise face poverty. Once you joined, everything was cared for, for the rest of your life (howsoever long that might be). You get an education, a solid job, get taken care of if sick or maimed and once you're old enough to retire, the corps will also support and pay you until you get put into the ground. But before that, you're sure to enjoy a Janissary's favourite past time: Screwing young boys. A recruit would not only be trained as a soldier, but learn a trade, or according to his skill become an engineer, administrator, etc. There were special colleges that would educate promising individuals, these are the men that run the state and the royal estates (which initially supported most of the corp's needs and made large profits). The Janissaries are the police, firefigthers (with an unsettling tendency to commit arson), clerks, engineers that keep the empire running. Or at least the european part, as Anatolia was always an unruly shitfest. Being in the corps, you basically can hold any office in the state, but religious offices like kadi. Later in the 1600s, you can even hold land. The corps is an neverending source of political intrigue from the 15th century onward, but it never actively deposed a Sultan until Osman II in 1622. From then on, everything spins out of control for a long time until Grand Vizier Köprülü manages to put the state back into a working form and de facto stripping the Sultan of any real power. However, the turmoil of the 1600s sends the empire in a spin from which it will never recover as a whole, so that it is able to catch up to the european powers. Everything circles around the problem of keeping the corps in check or destroying it alltogether. To make the system run from time to time, it would take a very skilled individual who was able to navigate the complex political terrain, without such, the system was unstable. Reading about this era, you get an idea that this would make excellent material for a tv show, where main characters constantly get strangulated with a silken bowstring. The life of Sultan Ibrahim the Deranged and the preceding decades are actually a very good read. What Wikipedia doesn't tell you is, that he wasn't only batshit insane (ok, "the Deranged" might give him away), but had an obsession for morbidly obese women. The mother of his successor Mehmed IV. was so incredibly fat, that she could hardly walk alone, and Ibrahim kept a whole harem of these women. e: cleaning up grammar, etc. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Who'd like to learn about the Battle of Hattin? It's a great example of the problems that arise when an inexperienced commander ignores logistics and bravely charges into a trap. More stuff like this. Less grown men and their sword play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Otto Von Jizzmark posted:More stuff like this. Less grown men and their sword play. If you want to read about other things ask questions about them. "Be the change that you wish to see in the thread" - Pope Innocent II
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:If you want to read about other things ask questions about them. Ok! What's the most interesting thing in an archeological way that has happened witn Medieval History and Combat in the last decade? What really new things have we learned that we can take as a fact?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Crossposting this from the ancient history thread in the probably unlikely event that some people here don't also read that one. Its a set of maps detailing the entire history of the Roman Empire, along with some summaries of the major events. http://4umi.com/image/map/rome/19maps.php
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
How about Poland before and after the fall of Rome and throughout the middle ages. I can't remember hearing much about Poland until jan Sobieski and Poland-Lithuania.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Otto Von Jizzmark posted:How about Poland before and after the fall of Rome and throughout the middle ages. I can't remember hearing much about Poland until jan Sobieski and Poland-Lithuania. I'd like to know about this too and perhaps the wider Kiev\Rus\Rutheranian area too. All I know is barbarbarbarians -> Tribe like areas forming (out of need?) into more stable proto country block -> HOLY poo poo SOME MONGOLS -> Go Go Muscovy -> LOL Commonwealth LOL -> Russia -> Oh Hi again Poland REALLY sucks to be you for like 100 years -> Today. It'd be awesome if someone could do a narrative effort post on the area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:I'd like to know about this too and perhaps the wider Kiev\Rus\Rutheranian area too. You're missing a 'oh poo poo vikings' period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
the JJ posted:You're missing a 'oh poo poo vikings' period. See I know nothing! I know in CK2 there's some Viking guy kicking rear end toward Kiev but well that's CK2 and I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 09:18
|
|