|
Nektu posted:Have some vids of tournament longsword-fights that contain a surprising amount of technique and dont just degenerate in wild flailing around: Nice videos! Here are a few more that I find particularly interesting. These are Spanish fencers using German longsword techniques. They seem to have forgone the vorschlaag and focus almost entirely on the krieg (bind work). It's pretty fast paced, and there is a lot of sword contact which eventually leads to kick rear end disarms and pommel hits. Check out his channel for more videos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAYk3KKo9Ls This is one of my favorite videos, showing two English fencers from the Academy of Historical Fencing sparring Cappo Ferro rapier against Meyer longsword. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM They also have many great videos worth checking out, along with descriptions of the hits between exchanges. They also have a wide range of weaponry at their disposal, from rotella + rapier to spear against longsword. This is a 6-part video on fighting in full harness. Intro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy78IaIo0mE Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4X1FNhYx3U Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H5fXf90Gto Part 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07ocY4JMT4k Part 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhNplvWL7P0 Part 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpwn0xWro2Q My friends over at MEMAG put together a nice video on a rather odd text by Talhoffer explaining the dueling process of (I believe) a man and a women in a civil dispute. The man is placed in a waist-high pit and is given a club, while the woman is given a sling with a big rock inside. If one is subdued, if the man is pulled from the pit, or the woman pulled into the pit, determines the winner. The quality is kinda low, but the information is there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9Eqzcejws http://www.youtube.com/user/MEMAG/videos
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
I'm really interested in the historical backgrounds behind certain pieces of literature, and I was wondering if this thread could provide some insight into one of them: What might explain the fact that Saladin is almost universally portrayed in Western literature as a heroic figure? It's seen mostly in the 1700s / 1800s with things like The Talisman, Ivanhoe, and Nathan the Wise, but even during the Middle Ages there are epic poems praising him and Dante notably places him in Limbo while condemning both Muhammad and Ali to hell (not to mention making passing reference to eternally burning mosques). So while some of the later writings can be attributed to romanticism of the past, he was at least seen in a moderately sympathetic light in Europe not long after the Crusades. I'm not familiar enough with the history of this period to see why that would be the case, can anyone shed some light on it? I was always under the impression that it was pretty uncommon for military figures in the Islamic world to be seen in a positive light by Europeans - for instance the only other Muslims Dante includes in Limbo to my memory are Avicenna and Averroes, who are presumably given a pass for their peaceful intellectual contributions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Because he was a total bro and people like it when their enemies are total bros. Plus it gives the crusades a nice narrative. After all, losing to someone who is the hyper-competent pinnacle of Islamic Chivalry beats the crusaders getting beaten by Joe al-schmoe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Because he was a total bro and people like it when their enemies are total bros. Is there any good source looking at his treatment of Christians compared to any of his contemporaries? I know there are some instances where he basically let prisoners go free, gave non-soldiers time to evacuate captured cities, etc., but he also had at least a couple "execute everyone" moments, correct? I'm not sure if the former outweighed the latter by a significant margin or if that was just altogether uncommon behavior at the time, though. Also, in regards to Sir Walter Scott in particular, I'm interested in the fact that not only did he portray Saladin in an excessively positive light, but he seems to make a point of portraying the Crusaders as borderline-incompetent barbarians. I think I've heard someone say this may have been a byproduct of "Scottish Enlightenment" thinking but to be perfectly honest I have zero knowledge of what that might entail. I know that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm curious if there are any Western sources closer to Saladin's own time that shared similar views r.e. the Crusaders and Saladin. And if anyone knows of any good reading on the subject I'd love to hear suggestions, I really don't know nearly enough about this period of history. Even using Saladin as part of the narrative in that fashion, it struck me as a bit odd that Dante goes from praising Saladin to depicting Muhammad split down the middle with his guts hanging out with a bunch of burning mosques in the background.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
I went to a longsword tournament and all I got was this lousy broken finger. On the plus side it's my weak hand, which left me with plenty of time to try out Polish saber! Are there any historical documents regarding left-handed fighters? Everyone seemed really fuckin' confused sparring me. They never seemed to notice I was fighting left-handed until I mentioned it. I haven't read all of his texts, but Lichtenauer mentions it only in passing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I am at work so no link but that scholara gladiatora guy did a video on that, seemed like the general deal was that it was confusing back then as well for the exact same reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:I went to a longsword tournament and all I got was this lousy broken finger. On the plus side it's my weak hand, which left me with plenty of time to try out Polish saber! I used to fence foil, and left-handed swordsmen would always confuse me. When I was in tournament, I was always in a sort of fugue state just touching opponent after opponent, when suddenly a sword is directly in front of my own sword and I can't get past it. It's obviously the same problem for the other guy, but whereas I'm facing it now, he's faced it every fight of his life. Lefty ended up with gold in our local tournament. Then, the next year, an ambidextrous motherfucker joins the school. It was like Princess Bride up in there, dude swapping whenever he felt you'd gotten too used to his attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
I did manage to take video of the Longsword finals at Shortpoint 2014. We decided on a new set of rules for following tournaments. Each bout is 1 minute 30 seconds. Each fighter has two judges on opposite sides of the ring. Whenever "Point" is called by either the judges or the referee (after a hit is made), the fight is paused and evaluated by the referee. The judges raise their colored flags (in this case, red or blue) whenever they believe their fighter earned a particular "point type" that round. If both colors are raised for the same "point type", the point is a "wash", and neither fighter receives that "point type". There are different "point types" a fighter can earn: Hits (1 point), Quality (1 point), Target (2 points), Control (3 points) for a potential total of 7 points per single fight. There is also the "slaughter" rule, where if one fighter is ever 14+ points above the other, that fighter wins the bout. A hit (1 point) is determined if someone physically hits their opponent with the blade of the sword. Quality (1 point) is determined if the attack that hit was well-executed (rather than flailing the blade, for instance). Target (2 points) is determined if you hit the head or torso, so hits against the arms and legs will only ever confer the "Hit" point (1 point). Control (3 points) is the hardest to achieve, and was only earned twice in the tournament. A "Control" is determined if a fighter not only managed to strike their opponent, but did so by effectively controlling the fight both offensively and defensively. If a maneuver allowed a fighter to not only strike his opponent well, but parry it so effectively that there was no chance of retaliation, that could earn a "Control" point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
A while back there were people talking about the possibility of certain swords being specifically used as anti-polearm weapons to cut through the shafts here(zweihanders, I think?), and while I think it's been covered pretty well that that's not really very possible or smart I ran across this video just recently and I think it demonstrates that fairly well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hspbRwtSQbc They mention several times that the wood used for the shaft of the hammer/spear that they're showing here isn't even really at all suitable for use as a polearm shaft, and there's still no way that they're gonna be cut through in just one or even 2 or three blows, even when given an ideal opening. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to try and hack through actual properly made spear shafts in the middle of a heated battle, especially in formation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:A while back there were people talking about the possibility of certain swords being specifically used as anti-polearm weapons to cut through the shafts here(zweihanders, I think?), and while I think it's been covered pretty well that that's not really very possible or smart I ran across this video just recently and I think it demonstrates that fairly well. Also this video from 6:00 on addresses the topic of cutting through spear-shafts with swords - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8 - and he says it takes about 3 good hits to split a spear shaft (under good circumstances with sharp blades). From around 9:00 a little is mentioned about greatswords as anti-pike weapons and so on - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxsol6J1HLU - it focuses more for alternative functions for them instead. Full Fathoms Five posted:Is there any good source looking at his treatment of Christians compared to any of his contemporaries? I know there are some instances where he basically let prisoners go free, gave non-soldiers time to evacuate captured cities, etc., but he also had at least a couple "execute everyone" moments, correct? I'm not sure if the former outweighed the latter by a significant margin or if that was just altogether uncommon behavior at the time, though. Sorry this is so late, I have been working on my dissertation and have been severely ill and so on. I am trying to find good sources for Saladin’s reputation for kindness. It is more difficult to find convincing sources than I was expecting. I (when starting this post and before starting this research, I’ll let you know at the end if my opinion changes) saw Saladin as kind when given the choice, though able to be ruthless when he saw it as necessary. Dorsey Armstrong in The Medieval World gives an example of him directing attacks away from a particular tower because a couple got married there recently. She gives the example of him sparing the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem (though with a ransom, and she doesn’t mention that 15000 people ended up being enslaved, or that the people who could pay the ransom were forced out…). Saladin’s biographer, Baha al-Din, notes that Saladin bought back a child that had been taken from a Frankish woman. An interesting argument is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7cKFxtXTc - essentially he argues that Saladin was as bad as Raynald of Chatillon. Actually, most of the sources I find portraying Saladin as kind seem to be unreliable. For instance, this one - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0slaves&f=false - this doesn’t cite its sources clearly, and it clearly has an axe to grind. For all that Saladin was flexible with the terms, and probably was hoping that no one would be enslaved, I cannot characterise enslaving 15000 people as an act of great mercy. Thomas Madden (who I know Obdicut doesn’t like, but Madden’s bias is sufficiently pro-Crusader that I am willing to accept his praise of Saladin at face value) comments that Saladin did his best to be a just ruler and got rid of a lot of unfair taxes - http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2005/05/Onward-Lukewarm-Christian-Soldiers.aspx?p=2 As a side note, I am not a fan of contrasting Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem in 1187 with the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. I will not divert the topic with a tangent unless asked to go into further detail though. On the Enlightenment, I think the Enlightenment period in general was not very enlightened, although the idea of the Enlightenment was to be based on reason rather than faith and a faith-based endeavour such as the Crusades had to be stupid from their perspective. The Enlightenment-era also had this idea of seeing themselves as the best or most enlightened period, which required them to view earlier periods as inferior. I am not sure if that is any help. Basically, the Enlightenment cannot be a golden age with the Dark Ages to contrast to. EDIT: Another thing I forgot to mention! Saladin could be negotiated with, which was probably a factor in his popularity with the west. First of all, he did keep his promise at the surrender of Jerusalem. Second, he agreed after the Third Crusade to allow Christian pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem. Also, before Saladin, the Crusaders had repeatedly trounced the Fatamid caliphate in previous encounters. So Saladin was a capable military leader who could be reasoned with. I can see him being easy to like from a Frankish perspective. Railtus fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:I went to a longsword tournament and all I got was this lousy broken finger. On the plus side it's my weak hand, which left me with plenty of time to try out Polish saber! In the club I belong to (Academy of Historical Fencing) we've had 3 broken fingers in the last year or so and they've all come from poor defence one guy who has broken two different fingers used to hold the hilt near his face when defending cuts to the top of his head and as a result was always getting his fingers caught by his opponents sword. We ended up doing a whole evening on how to properly defend with the longsword, dude still gets his fingers in the way though 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Ultragonk posted:In the club I belong to (Academy of Historical Fencing) we've had 3 broken fingers in the last year or so and they've all come from poor defence one guy who has broken two different fingers used to hold the hilt near his face when defending cuts to the top of his head and as a result was always getting his fingers caught by his opponents sword. We ended up doing a whole evening on how to properly defend with the longsword, dude still gets his fingers in the way though Do what my instructor always used to do: tape someone's hand to their sword in proper position. Remove tape after the two hour class is over. Nobody that happened to ever forgot how to grip ever again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:Do what my instructor always used to do: tape someone's hand to their sword in proper position. Remove tape after the two hour class is over. Nobody that happened to ever forgot how to grip ever again. It's not his grip that's the problem as much as it's the fact he has the sword in the wrong place when parrying so he ends up parrying with the hilt rather than the blade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Saladin could be negotiated with, which was probably a factor in his popularity with the west. First of all, he did keep his promise at the surrender of Jerusalem. Second, he agreed after the Third Crusade to allow Christian pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem. Also, before Saladin, the Crusaders had repeatedly trounced the Fatamid caliphate in previous encounters. So Saladin was a capable military leader who could be reasoned with. I can see him being easy to like from a Frankish perspective. I've always thought the fact that contemporary Crusader accounts apparently went back home and gave him a thumbs up pretty compelling. "Saladin was pretty cool for a Muslim" is a thing that shows up a lot in, e.g. Dante and stuff. So, I'm not saying that he was a cool guy by modern standards, but he fit a pretty good mold for European chivalry when it would have been very easy for them to cast him as an utter villain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
That, or the fact that it's easier to justify losing to the pinnacle of chivalry, rather than an ungodly evil monster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Dwarf posted:That, or the fact that it's easier to justify losing to the pinnacle of chivalry, rather than an ungodly evil monster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Also this video from 6:00 on addresses the topic of cutting through spear-shafts with swords - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8 - and he says it takes about 3 good hits to split a spear shaft (under good circumstances with sharp blades). Also, from the Western chronicler's point of view, Saladin did all the right things; he treated the noble prisoners well. I have read that he was somewhat harsh in his treatment of the Shia during his rule of Egypt, which a Frank might not care about when describing him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Anyone have a few words on the make up of Saladin's army?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Anyone have a few words on the make up of Saladin's army? I'm not entirely sure on this but I am positive that it was made up mostly of Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Anyone have a few words on the make up of Saladin's army? I will start by throwing in this - http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/H-604-pdfs/12-Lev-Fatimid.pdf - I found a journal article that hopefully does not require university to access, and journal articles tend to be handy. I know my university gives extra marks for using journals for evidence. One thing I notice is the system of payment, the iqta, is at first glance resembling feudalism but seems more centralised. Essentially the iqta is like a fief in that it is a payment in the produce of land, but it could be reassigned because it is not a personal estate but instead a right to income. Ian Heath mentions that in Saladin’s period there was a source (which he doesn’t expand on, which I hate, but I like Heath’s work in general) that says Frankish soldiers were paid much higher, but it was probably due to inflation in the Muslim states at the time. Another thing is there tends to be dilution of the iqta among more men – for instance officers called amirs might have iqta based on how many troops they commanded, so you get amirs of 10 (commanding up to 20 soldiers), amirs of 40 (commanding as many as 70-80). Strangely, it seems like you get the opposite of European armies, where the Muslim army might be larger than it was on paper. Mounted archers were more of a Turkish thing. Instead the Fatimids relied more on foot archers and horsemen equipped as lancers and swordsmen rather than archers. One thing I should point out is we do tend to see more Egyptian cavalry in quilted/cotton armours, with the difference in equipment probably explaining why Frankish knights tended to be more effective in their charges than the Fatimids. According to the Itinerarium, the Mamluks may have been more averse to fighting on foot than Frankish knights were. Before Jaffa in 1192, the Mamluks haughtily refused to dismount to sneak into the Frankish camp while the Kurdish soldiers kept watch on horseback, on the grounds that the Mamluks were ‘nobler’ and fighting on foot was the Kurd’s job. I wonder if this aversion translated to a limit in their training: if they disliked fighting on foot so much, maybe they were less trained in foot combat. A bizarre detail is a racial element Heath’s mentions. First of all, there was a tendency to use black Africans rather than Arabs for the infantry work, which as I mentioned was a not very respected role (you also do get the quotes from Arab scholars that is distressingly close to the extreme racism Europe & America adopt around the 18th century, but the ones I am familiar with are slightly later than Saladin). However, Heath offers an explanation that (much) later English in Egypt found African soldiers much easier to train than Arabic soldiers, so it may be that black Africans (often Sudanese) took infantry combat more seriously than the Arabs did? I am struggling to find the appropriate terminology. Heath uses the word “Negro” in his work, but I am not entirely comfortable using that word, so I apologise in advance if I am phrasing any of this badly. Fatimid armies from Saladin’s period tends more towards foot archers and mounted lancers. I don’t think they had that much in the way of heavy infantry, as the Fatimid description of the walls of arms presented against them (shield walls combined with crossbowmen) gives me the impression that such combined arms tactics were not typical in Fatimid forces. The other thing is vast numbers, Fatimid field armies include Ascalon (20,000) First Ramla (11,000 cavalry, 21,000 Sudanese foot), Second Ramla (20,000 cavalry, 10,000 Sudanese foot). Essentially the Fatimid repeatedly outnumbered the Crusader armies and could replace these armies again and again and again and again, while the Crusader defeat at Hattin (roughly the same size as the Crusader victory at Montgisard) was crippling for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is mostly indirect knowledge, but I hope it helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:A while back there were people talking about the possibility of certain swords being specifically used as anti-polearm weapons to cut through the shafts here(zweihanders, I think?), and while I think it's been covered pretty well that that's not really very possible or smart I ran across this video just recently and I think it demonstrates that fairly well. We discussed "greatswords" and other large two handed swords briefly, and someone in my club mentioned their use in Italy and Spain (I believe) as literal crowd control. As in skirmishers using sweeping techniques to form an almost literal barrier of blades in an effort to quell peasant revolts and the like. Not sure if that's connected to your question, but I say it because I've never heard of a sword being used to hew through anything other than people. I'd think the better response to a long polearm is an even longer polearm. Ultragonk posted:In the club I belong to (Academy of Historical Fencing) we've had 3 broken fingers in the last year or so and they've all come from poor defence one guy who has broken two different fingers used to hold the hilt near his face when defending cuts to the top of his head and as a result was always getting his fingers caught by his opponents sword. We ended up doing a whole evening on how to properly defend with the longsword, dude still gets his fingers in the way though Observers mentioned that it was an awkward hit and the parry was a proper response, but I was obviously too close, otherwise he would have hit the blade. I have a lot of stuff to work on, I just wish I had more time to spar properly. Also, I watch Academy of Historical Fencing videos all the time! The rapier vs longsword video is one of my favorites, and it's what got me into HEMA at all. I'm also trying out rapier because of it. 
Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
I just spent my morning photographing our collection of medieval liturgical vestments - mainly copes and chasubles. Sadly these almost never go on display for lack of space and (perceived) lack of interest among the public. I thought some might like to see a few pictures. These are largely 14th and 15th C. I think they're absolutely beautiful. This one is the cope of Cardinal Morton (15thC), who instituted an interesting system of taxation: John Morton posted:"If the subject is seen to live frugally, tell him because he is clearly a money saver of great ability, he can afford to give generously to the King. If, however, the subject lives a life of great extravagance, tell him he, too, can afford to give largely, the proof of his opulence being evident in his expenditure."    Some of these others belong to the Dominicans but are on loan to us:  (Patron saint of Hockey)     
communism bitch fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Observers mentioned that it was an awkward hit and the parry was a proper response, but I was obviously too close, otherwise he would have hit the blade. I have a lot of stuff to work on, I just wish I had more time to spar properly. I still have trouble with distance, I'm quite a static fighter and that invites people to close the distance against me and while I'm strong enough to shrug off a grapple attempt I find I have some problems when I'm in the bind. Dirty Job posted:Also, I watch Academy of Historical Fencing videos all the time! The rapier vs longsword video is one of my favorites, and it's what got me into HEMA at all. I'm also trying out rapier because of it. We just finished a block of rapier training with single rapier for the first time. It's an interesting weapon although I must admit that I prefer rapier & dagger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
I've recently developed an itch for the Crusader states. I've already gone through Hans Eberhard Mayer's The Crusades, gave Runciman a go and just today wrapped up Thomas Asbridge's The Crusades: The Authoritative History. Thing is, I want to know more about the inner workings of Jerusalem, Tripoli and Antioch (wouldn't mind knowing more about the Latin Empire either) and those works spend plenty of time just jumping from one Crusade to another- Asbridge's work barely described 13th century Jerusalem/Acre at all, for example. What's a good, dense read that can provide more detail about the internal developments of Outremer et al, both pre-1187 and post-Third Crusade/Kingdom of Acre period?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I've recently developed an itch for the Crusader states. I've already gone through Hans Eberhard Mayer's The Crusades, gave Runciman a go and just today wrapped up Thomas Asbridge's The Crusades: The Authoritative History. I recommend using google books before putting down any money, of course, as often only a few chapters of these books apply to the inner workings. Essentially use libraries and so on rather than trying to buy these books, but here are some sources I used in my dissertation on the Crusader states: J. A. Brundage has "The Crusades: A documentary survey." This gives a lot of primary sources. John Riley-Smith, "The Crusades: A history." D. Munro, "The Kingdom of the Crusaders" (1920s but still good). R. Pernoud, "The Crusades". Ibn Munqidh & Ibn Jubayr are good for an outsider perspective. Prawer, "Colonization Activities in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem" (Journal Article, should be accessed through JSTOR). I hope that helps! As for any good dense reads on the kingdoms specifically, those are quite hard to find (I had the same problem you did). I had the best luck going through primary sources for the picture that shared. I found Pernoud the most handy because it combines the source with some interpretation and conclusion. EDIT: I should also add that I found Runciman's work completely useless for my dissertation, except as historiography to criticise. From what I remember it was very foreign-policy centric and laced with prejudices. Railtus fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
So this is mid-17th century, and I'm not sure that counts as Medieval, but I don't know a better place to ask: A coworker and I were discussing Pascal's Wager, which can be summarized as, "If the rewards for being an observant catholic are infinite, and the cost is finite, then how bad do the odds have to be for it to be a bad choice?" We supposed that for a 17th-century Frenchman, your choices were pretty much "Catholic" or "Not Religious". Is that accurate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:So this is mid-17th century, and I'm not sure that counts as Medieval, but I don't know a better place to ask: It was only until 1685 when the Edict of Nantes was revoked when the Protestants were outright expelled from the country. But it was pretty serious business back then so it wouldn't really be a choice for the common man. On the other hand, if you had a chance at the throne, you could make do like Henry IV and convert just to make it to King of France. It didn't earn him any popularity points though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:So this is mid-17th century, and I'm not sure that counts as Medieval, but I don't know a better place to ask: The French Wars of Religion (1562-98) ended in the Edict of Nantes, giving at least some rights to the Huguenot Protestants. The Edict was still biased against the Protestant, so were getting the worse end of the deal, but it meant you could be Protestant for most of the 1600s. Before that, the French Wars of Religion being a thing in the first place implies Protestantism was at least important and powerful enough to be a challenge to the otherwise Catholic state. Also, I have no problem with being asked Renaissance/Early Modern stuff. My university actually teaches far more of that than medieval history, although the courses I took were American-colonies centric ('War and Empire' about the British Empire, 'Britain and the World' about the earlier British Empire, 'Westward Enterprise' about the first British colonies, aka, the start of the British Empire... this is getting far too narrow, and also 'A Nation of Pirates' about the growth and development of English piracy, particularly expanding to the Caribbean).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
How did medieval folk clean themselves after pooping?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Probably with any absorbent material that was readily available, like straw, dried leaves, old rags and suchlike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I recommend using google books before putting down any money, of course, as often only a few chapters of these books apply to the inner workings. Essentially use libraries and so on rather than trying to buy these books, but here are some sources I used in my dissertation on the Crusader states: And yeah, Runciman comes off a little Gibbon-ish regarding the Franks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Probably with any absorbent material that was readily available, like straw, dried leaves, old rags and suchlike. Rags/sponges that you wash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Probably with any absorbent material that was readily available, like straw, dried leaves, old rags and suchlike. Also moss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
I feel like this document illustrates the possibilities rather well: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gargantua/Chapter_XIII
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:I feel like this document illustrates the possibilities rather well: Oh god the "preferred" method at the end is amazing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
That... sounds like a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Thanks for the recommendations! I'll dig out what I can-- however, I'm not in college anymore and don't have university-level access to JSTOR. How's academia.edu? I'm not fond of Asbridge's writing but I tracked down some of his cited sources down to that site- for example, Aspects of Everyday Life in Frankish Acre, by Prof. David Jacoby, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I've never used academia.edu, but looking at the sample article I see absolutely nothing wrong with it as a resource. From a quick look it has solid citations, it relates information or conclusions to evidence, and it acknowledges limits of the sources it uses. That makes me feel confident in trusting a historian's work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Oh god the "preferred" method at the end is amazing Reminds me of a joke. A bear and rabbit are pooping in the woods. Bear asks Rabbit, "do you have a problem with poo poo sticking to your fur?" The rabbit says no, so the bear wipes his rear end with the rabbit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:I feel like this document illustrates the possibilities rather well: I was really disappointed when about a year ago Rabelais made an appearance on QI, and everyone thought that he was serious about wiping his rear end with a goose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Super strange question here: Anyone know anything about hanging people next to dogs? I know that some old pagans would hang people alongside dogs, and this book talks about Frederick the Great ordering certain crimes to be punished by hanging alongside a dog; was there any sort of continuous tradition of doing this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:32
|
|
