|
JaucheCharly posted:I read what's on the page and it almost made my head explode. How did real people speak at this time? "An den künftigen/günstigen(?!?) der edlen Piquen Handlung". So that's fitness drills with pike and sword? The word you want is künstig, "artful." And you forgot the full clause, der Piquen Handlung is in the genitive, it's "An den künstigen der edlen Piquen Handlung Liebhaber," "To The Artful/Talented Fan Of Noble Pike Handling." Normal people, like just some dude testifying at a murder trial, have different vocabulary and grammar from modern Germans, but they also speak much more simply than Wallhausen there. Short clauses, one after the other. "And then this happened." A lot of people separate their clauses with "Aber," so you get an entire page of, like, a bar fight or something, "But this happened. But then this happened." It's like listening to someone speak, sometimes down to the slang (which is difficult, since that's not in any dictionaries). As soon as people start writing down things they believe are important, syntax gets complicated. The construction for a formal thing (you're writing for publication, or to a head of state, for example) is a little like formal Greek or Latin, like that title up there--note that the definite article and adjective for the object of the sentence is separated by an entire other thing from the noun: "To the artful of-noble-pike-handling fan." Things like that are super common. They're also Latin as hell. But since German has fewer cases it's harder to pull off. Not to mention that a popular form of abbreviation in handwriting is to lop the declension endings off and replace them with slashes or squiggles. I enjoy a good interrogation transcript, but reading the cover letters that go with them, or the judgements of the court, etc, is like wading through soup. The same people who are capable of perfectly transparent writing when they're not intimidated by the context suddenly freeze up and start complicating things. I think German from this period is farther away from you than English from this period is from me. I can read Milton, Hobbes, or Shakespeare no problem, no head explosions at all (and I do pick the editions with the original spelling and punctuation, since I'm a huge snob). When I try to use vocabulary I learn at work to talk to real people, I get corrected. Do y'all not say "entleibung" for "killing"? And I know "defense" isn't "defendierung" any more. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Aug 13, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Slap a couple of cannonballs in buckets on each end of the pike and start doing some rows goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Slap a couple of cannonballs in buckets on each end of the pike and start doing some rows goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Those things are still part of the common language to a degree, although people will not use them casually, they will know and understand. This is especially true for many words in dialect that are still the same or very similar. Language of the commoners ofc
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:There is a bit of a divide that I'm learning about between "classical/historical fencing" and "HEMA/WMA", which is that HEMA/WMA (at least, in my experience) has a tendency to want to stay as close to the source material as possible, while classical/historical fencing wants to teach you how to fence in the best way possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
But, uh, Capo Ferro's guard doesn't lean towards the opponent. It leans back.Capo Ferro posted:67) In resting in guard and in seeking the measure, the body needs to be bent, and slopes to the rear, such that the angle which it makes with the right thigh is barely visible, and with the left thigh it comes to make an obtuse angle, so that the left shoulder is in line with the line of the left foot, and the right shoulder evenly passes through the middle of the pace of the guard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Is this really surprising? I understand some of the european martial tradition has been lost, but someone trying to build a fencing style is going to have a pretty significant advantage over an ancient master. Means tested techniques get a lot easier when you don't risk death or maiming from infection every time you are accidentally injured, and we can for example record sparring and examine what works. As far as I know, even back in the day they used practice swords and protective gear, which doesn't really differ that much from today's stuff in their utility. The types of injuries you get from sword practice aren't that lethal on the average: you might break a finger or get bruises.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Making a training blunt is not exactly rocket science, and Meyer's treatise (among others) shows training swords sometimes known as feder or fechtschwert. Oh my God look at those illustrations, they're loving gorgeous. Siivola fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:As far as I know, even back in the day they used practice swords and protective gear, which doesn't really differ that much from today's stuff in their utility. The types of injuries you get from sword practice aren't that lethal on the average: you might break a finger or get bruises. The only people who would use sharp swords to practice would be adepts looking to better simulate a real fight. Nearly all practice would have been done with blunt training swords, or just wooden swords.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:a popular form of abbreviation in handwriting is to lop the declension endings off and replace them with slashes or squiggles. In complete sympathy with your attempts to wade through German grammatical soup, that actually makes a lot of sense as a way of quickly transcribing small bullshit. Hell, that's pretty similar to the way Germans actually talk. Maybe not as extreme as in notes, but if it's a quick back and forth some word endings are getting swallowed. quote:When I try to use vocabulary I learn at work to talk to real people, I get corrected. Do y'all not say "entleibung" for "killing"? And I know "defense" isn't "defendierung" any more. I used to get laughed at a lot for the same reason. Apparently over-exposure to early Soviet-era internal office correspondence left me with a bad case of bureaucrat-speak, plus using certain SED "key words" to describe various concepts that left me sounding like a caricature of a Marxist flunkey. How much longer are you out there for? Archive time is the best time. I would loving kill to get another year of rolling around in documents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Is this really surprising? I understand some of the european martial tradition has been lost, but someone trying to build a fencing style is going to have a pretty significant advantage over an ancient master. Means tested techniques get a lot easier when you don't risk death or maiming from infection every time you are accidentally injured, and we can for example record sparring and examine what works. To add to Siivola's very good points about why this is bullshit, it is honestly the height of arrogance to assume that a few years of loving around with blunts we know better than people who actually used these techniques to kill. There will always be certain things you can only know from fighting in earnest, or at the very least watching others do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:To add to Siivola's very good points about why this is bullshit, it is honestly the height of arrogance to assume that a few years of loving around with blunts we know better than people who actually used these techniques to kill. There will always be certain things you can only know from fighting in earnest, or at the very least watching others do so. Wanted to add this but you said it far more succinctly than I would have. They got far closer to it than any of us ever will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Siivola posted:But, uh, Capo Ferro's guard doesn't lean towards the opponent. It leans back. You can see several images (for example image 5) which shows a considerable lean at the end of executing a lunge or thrust, as well as the forward knee trickling over the forward foot. Both of these are "incorrect" in modern historical/classical fencing, with the forward knee issue being directly related both to self injury and a slower reset to the starting position. They're just images, but it's interesting to me that so many modern HEMA practitioners go with an /exact/ interpretation based sometimes solely off of the pictures rather than the direct translations of the written material. My longsword teacher is particularly careful about this, but thankfully many of the sources we use have accompanying written text and my teacher (I believe) reads German fluently. Rodrigo Diaz posted:To add to Siivola's very good points about why this is bullshit, it is honestly the height of arrogance to assume that a few years of loving around with blunts we know better than people who actually used these techniques to kill. There will always be certain things you can only know from fighting in earnest, or at the very least watching others do so. We have to consider that many of the people practicing these arts at the time of their application were, in many cases, training literally every day for several hours. It's leisure for us, but it was (for many people) a necessity. Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
I'm on my phone, so i don't see, but does the guy in image 9 get stabbed through the head?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Yes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:In complete sympathy with your attempts to wade through German grammatical soup, that actually makes a lot of sense as a way of quickly transcribing small bullshit. Hell, that's pretty similar to the way Germans actually talk. Maybe not as extreme as in notes, but if it's a quick back and forth some word endings are getting swallowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation Cyrano4747 posted:How much longer are you out there for? Archive time is the best time. I would loving kill to get another year of rolling around in documents. I've started planning trips around the reenactment season, because this incredibly weird activity is now my favorite martial art. Once you know what you're doing, it is insane how much fun this is. So much cooler than babysitting a musket all day. I only wish my armor fit... HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Slap a couple of cannonballs in buckets on each end of the pike and start doing some rows goddamn. Someone said some posts are randomly going missing in a gbs thread and now I have no clue what I was even replying to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Someone said some posts are randomly going missing in a gbs thread and now I have no clue what I was even replying to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Oh my lord, you've been wandering the forums asking about this. God bless. I am a Ronin. Also I've only posted it like twice and its because I had no clue what the context was of my post after posting frequently while drunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
So I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but what are peoples opinions on whether Celts/Romans/Vikings did or did not wear padded armour under their maille?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:So I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but what are peoples opinions on whether Celts/Romans/Vikings did or did not wear padded armour under their maille?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
An argument I heard recently (which prompted the question) was that Celts/Romans/Vikings most likely did not regard the body armour as a defence in and of itself, but as a final line of defence against cuts which could be potentially fatal if infected. To them, the shield was the first and foremost method of personal defence. If you were taking hits on your chain armour, you've done hosed up son. You can contrast this with medieval knights who once they start wearing maille with padded armour underneath (for which there is obviously proof for unlike the afore mentioned Celts/Romans/Vikings), shield sizes began to shrink because their armour is effective enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Verisimilitude, last weekend I visited a company that use rubber pike heads, and I like them. From a distance, they look perfect (close up, you can see that the cheek pieces are painted on), and they are a correct shape (there's several pike head shapes, they had one of them). You still have to drop your point immediately before closing though, since like I said, there is no way to make one of these things really safe. The guy who said he'd teach me fencing was coordinating the event I went to, so he didn't have enough time to do poo poo. When I meet him again, I'll give a trip report.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:An argument I heard recently (which prompted the question) was that Celts/Romans/Vikings most likely did not regard the body armour as a defence in and of itself, but as a final line of defence against cuts which could be potentially fatal if infected. To them, the shield was the first and foremost method of personal defence. If you were taking hits on your chain armour, you've done hosed up son. You can contrast this with medieval knights who once they start wearing maille with padded armour underneath (for which there is obviously proof for unlike the afore mentioned Celts/Romans/Vikings), shield sizes began to shrink because their armour is effective enough. The Romans used an undergarment called a subarmalis. No good examples have been discovered yet since soft material like that does not hold up well for thousands of years. It was probably not as thick as a gambeson but they did not just wear mail over a tunic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
The guy said there was no real evidence that the subarmalis was considered a type of armour, just a kind of undergarment, unlike medieval padded armours which could be and were worn on their own. I've had a Viking reenactor guy (for what it's worth) tell me that you can just wear an extra tunic under your maille and it's fine and comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:The guy said there was no real evidence that the subarmalis was considered a type of armour, just a kind of undergarment, unlike medieval padded armours which could be and were worn on their own. I've had a Viking reenactor guy (for what it's worth) tell me that you can just wear an extra tunic under your maille and it's fine and comfortable. Yes the gambeson was more protective but it did not take 1200 years for someone to finally figure out that more padding under chainmail was good. The difference between the Vikings and Romans is we know the Romans had a specific garment designed to be worn under armor, and the Vikings did not. From a few google searches of past internet arguments about this it seems there are some paintings and such of Legionaries with subarmalis poking out of their armor that makes it look decently thick, though nothing like a gambeson. If the Romans bothered to mandate a special garment, it would not be unreasonable to think it probably offered some added protection, since the concept of "padding under the mail makes it better" was something multiple cultures figured out multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:An argument I heard recently (which prompted the question) was that Celts/Romans/Vikings most likely did not regard the body armour as a defence in and of itself, but as a final line of defence against cuts which could be potentially fatal if infected. To them, the shield was the first and foremost method of personal defence. If you were taking hits on your chain armour, you've done hosed up son. You can contrast this with medieval knights who once they start wearing maille with padded armour underneath (for which there is obviously proof for unlike the afore mentioned Celts/Romans/Vikings), shield sizes began to shrink because their armour is effective enough. That line of reasoning is total bullshit, and we can infer from other bits of evidence that mail would always be worn with textile armour. The dangers of infection, while real, are massively overstated. People nowadays seem to think that every scratch was a death sentence, but we have people like Ralph of Vermandois, who lost an eye, and Henry I, who got hit so hard with a sword that mail was driven into his head, coming out fine. Besides this, deep penetrating wounds are where the greater danger lies than in cuts. Don Pero Niño and King Louis VI both suffered leg wounds that festered, in the latter case leaving him permanently bedridden though Don Pedro recovered. But it is penetration which mail itself is least effective against, and piercing threats (from swords, spears, and arrows) are far more common than cutting ones. So why spend all this money on mail if it's not really going to protect you? Also, shield size DID NOT decrease uniformly. Large shields like pavises were used into the 15th century by foot soldiers for fighting, not just as mobile cover for archers. I also find it strange that he did not notice the increase in armour coverage (and the invention of things like chausses) to go along with the diminution in size. We know textile armour worn on its own existed contemporaneously with mail in, for example, the 9th century, so why would they not be combined? Edit: This guy probably faces 0 threat from being stabbed, barring freak accidents, and is basing this claim off his experiences. He is, of course, forgetting that reenactment is not the same as actual war. This failure to separate a game from historical reality seems to be the default mental state, and is one of the main reasons why I think reenactors should never be allowed to express opinions. That and Hegel's posting. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also, shield size DID NOT decrease uniformly. Large shields like pavises were used into the 15th century by foot soldiers for fighting, not just as mobile cover for archers. I always thought they were just used as mobile covers. Did the foot soldiers use them like Roman Legionnaires? Can you post pics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Besides this, deep penetrating wounds are where the greater danger lies than in cuts. quote:This failure to separate a game from historical reality seems to be the default mental state, and is one of the main reasons why I think reenactors should never be allowed to express opinions. That and Hegel's posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
What about the 16th century Turk and Persian soldiers wearing textile armor over their mail? Is the idea to keep the metal out of the sun, so that you don't boil yourself to death?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:What about the 16th century Turk and Persian soldiers wearing textile armor over their mail? Do not know for sure for them but it is my understanding the large tabards crusaders wore were largely for that purpose. Also world of warcraft has rendered google nigh useless for the subject of tabards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies lads!JaucheCharly posted:What about the 16th century Turk and Persian soldiers wearing textile armor over their mail? I've heard (heh in light of the last discussion) that textile over maille provides better protection against arrows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Thanks for the replies lads! I've heard as much as well. Seem to remember it had to do with how much additional friction you could impart to the arrowhead before it connected to the maille. There is also a test out there with arrows on a 30 layer linen jackcoat, and I believe the coat was surprisingly resilient against the arrows (for whatever that anecdotal story is worth)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
You mean bodkin heads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:The guy said there was no real evidence that the subarmalis was considered a type of armour, just a kind of undergarment, unlike medieval padded armours which could be and were worn on their own. I've had a Viking reenactor guy (for what it's worth) tell me that you can just wear an extra tunic under your maille and it's fine and comfortable. Others have mentioned that cloth doesn't tend to survive the centuries very well, but I would throw another question out there: how far is the gambeson worn with plate harness a type of armour vs. a kind of undergarment? I think it is partly a matter of perception: a subarmalis could be not considered a type of armour and yet still be physically identical to gambesons worn beneath armour in later periods. Medieval padded armours could be and were worn on their own, but these were not the same as medieval padded armours worn under mail. The padded jacks described in the Ordinances of Louis XI of France were 30 folds of cloth or 25 folds + a stag skin, with large sleeves specifically broad and full under the armpit, a hanging-piece to cover the laces at the front. This suggests a very thick and stiff garment, very different the padded armour worn under mail or plate, as arming doublets from what I know tend to be extremely close-fitting. Both are "padded armour" or "gambesons" but are not remotely alike. Another thought is King's Mirror ( http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/kingsmirror.htm ) recommends a soft gambeson under a mail hauberk and then a firm gambeson on top. I don't want to go too far with this interpretation, but it might be that the differences between padding under armour and padding as armour are being acknowledged. Generally I think that Celts or Vikings wore some form of padding, and I doubt anyone hoping for armour to save his life would wear just an extra tunic when anything more substantial was available. In short, I think anyone with access to mail would have access to decent padding to go with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Hey nerds, here's someone showing off some rad Persian (basic level apparently) sword techniques in full armor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBkrSL73kk
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Some people might not know that those are a thing. Also, it's not just Latin, it's every loan word that's perceived to be still foreign, which means you can tell how foreign the writer thinks the word is by which handwriting they use. The word "musket" is more foreign to these people than the last names of Bohemians, Zs and all. Hey, in Japanese they use a whole separate syllabary for loanwords so... (also amusing, some words like 'karaoke' are considered loan words in Japanese. Weep for these poor orphaned terms, lost without a home language. Also also amusing, most Chinese words are not. Do not bring this up to Japanese nationalists.) Rabhadh posted:Thanks for the replies lads! Two :~waifu~: posts in a row but in Ancient Honrabu Nihon they'd hang silk behind important messengers and generals. It was pretty blingy, tended to distract fire away from the actual body and/or conceal where the torso was, but it also did really catch arrows, at least enough that it'd plink instead of plunk into their armor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Everything I've read and watched about feudal Japan makes them out as some of the least honorable motherfuckers ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Everything I've read and watched about feudal Japan makes them out as some of the least honorable motherfuckers ever. Yeah, the later idea of bushido and so on are basically made up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Hey nerds, here's someone showing off some rad Persian (basic level apparently) sword techniques in full armor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBkrSL73kk I kinda expected that sombody would post Moshtagh Khorasani these days. He will be participating in a fight soon soon. http://www.moshtaghkhorasani.com/razmafzar/events/18-100-man-weapon-fight-prague-czech-republic/ Hopefully somebody will film it. He also published some stuff on persian archery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:02
|
|