|
Smoking Crow posted:Is it just me or does HEMA sound like a life threatening disease Not life threatening, it can be treated with organic skincare products. http://www.hemaproducts.com/
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
DandyLion posted:Not life threatening, it can be treated with organic skincare products. http://www.hemaproducts.com/ I keep getting hit in the face, but there is no cream for that???
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I keep getting hit in the face, but there is no cream for that??? depends what is hitting you in the face i guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:depends what is hitting you in the face i guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Any HEMA people here practice medieval wrestling besides the sword fighting? Last christmas I got the amazing Codex Wallerstein and it has a lot of neat stuff: we tried out what was in there with a friend of mine who is a defensive tactics instructor for the local police academy, some of the stuff seemed a bit shaky but the rest was more or less the same you would find in any decent jujutsu, judo or catch wrestling class. We do dagger with wrestling at least once a month (usually, but the instructor for it has been MIA for a bit) but I'm not sure which system he's teaching us. I'll get back to you with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Been reading through this thread and I got a question regarding firearms. The first rifle where supposedly created around 1520 in Germany, but how difficult where the process of rifling? Could rifled firearms have been created even earlier? Optional second question: What would happen if something like the Minié ball is invented at the same time as the first rifles? Suddenly you would have accurate and long range firarms that can hit targets at well over 400 meters, and I imagine that would have a bit of an impact on the battlefield at the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Max Manus posted:Been reading through this thread and I got a question regarding firearms. The first rifle where supposedly created around 1520 in Germany, but how difficult where the process of rifling? Could rifled firearms have been created even earlier? *shrug* What would have happened if pre-Colombian Indians had discovered iron aged metallurgical techniques and met Cortez et. al. at the waterfront in chain mail and with short swords? What would have happened if Julius Caesar had been run over by an ox cart when he was 10 years old? What would have happened if the Chinese had gotten explore-crazy and colonized S. Africa in the 15th century? Counterfactuals, especially those that propose a technology being invented a few centuries earlier, are kind of impossible to answer because there's painfully little evidence to really base arguments off of. At best you're making guesses that can't really be proven or refuted any more than you can come up with a concrete answer to whether the USS Enterprise or a Star Destroyer wins a space-duel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Max Manus posted:Optional second question: What would happen if something like the Minié ball is invented at the same time as the first rifles? Suddenly you would have accurate and long range firarms that can hit targets at well over 400 meters, and I imagine that would have a bit of an impact on the battlefield at the time. The next war would probably have been especially bloody because of the mixture of outdated tactics combined with modern weapons (as in WW1).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Max Manus posted:Been reading through this thread and I got a question regarding firearms. The first rifle where supposedly created around 1520 in Germany, but how difficult where the process of rifling? Could rifled firearms have been created even earlier? Prior to machines being able to do the rifling, you'd need a gunsmith to manually rifle each barrel by hand, at least 6-7 times. It would be slow and painstaking work and making more than a few rifles would be nearly impossible. I'm sure someone figured out a long time ago that a spinning projectile flies straight, but actually getting it to do that was such a chore that no one bothered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Prior to machines being able to do the rifling, you'd need a gunsmith to manually rifle each barrel by hand, at least 6-7 times. It would be slow and painstaking work and making more than a few rifles would be nearly impossible. I'm sure someone figured out a long time ago that a spinning projectile flies straight, but actually getting it to do that was such a chore that no one bothered. And where did you get the idea that making more than a few would be impossible? Why would that be? It's precision work, but I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Edited to sound less dismissive of your argument. Sorry about that. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Yes? More like the ACW, actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Rifling dates from the 15th century, of course they knew that a spinning projectile flies straighter. Fowling pieces were rifled, prestige weapons were rifled. The problem is that you have to screw the ball into the barrel and soot from the powder fouls the thing, not that they're harder to make than other precision work--if you can make the kinds of weapons and armor Owlkill posted, you can make a rifle. But is a colonel going to pay to outfit a regiment with them, even if you could load them as quickly as you can load a smoothbore musket, even if fouling wasn't a problem? Of course not. Not to mention hammer-forged rifling has been a known thing for a long goddamned time. It's not like regular rifling is "precision work" either, certainly not in the way engraving etc. is. It had a lot more to do with rifling getting fouled much faster. Not so much an issue when you're hunting deer, pretty big goddamned issue if you're in the line. The real genius of the mine ball was that the base expanded to meet the bore, so you could have substantially sub-caliber balls without completely hosing your accuracy and range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember hearing about one battle in the ECW (maybe???) where someone found a few guys with fowling pieces and sent them up a tree to shoot at enemy fendriches/officers, but they were just doing their own thing independently of the whole musketeer firing system they have going on. If you had to stop the entire thing every time someone had to scrub out his barrel...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, I remember hearing about one battle in the ECW (maybe???) where someone found a few guys with fowling pieces and sent them up a tree to shoot at enemy fendriches/officers, but they were just doing their own thing independently of the whole musketeer firing system they have going on. If you had to stop the entire thing every time someone had to scrub out his barrel... Yeah those Tommy Dreamer/Raven matches were crazy
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I started checking out the Codex Wallerstein once again inspired by this thread and searched youtube to find good stuff and found this 90 minute dagger seminar video which is alright. Still, it feels like something is missing when I stare at this stuff. Like the knife/dagger techniques are basically the same you'd find in old school jujutsu and they make sense and are straightforward but the required skill and luck factors seem huge. If you try out a drill where you give your partner a marker or a lipstick and he is supposed to stick you with it as much as he can and you'r mission is to grapple that knife from him, yor gonna get really red really fast without the other guy doing anything special, just being aggressive and forceful and jabbing you with the marker hand relentlesly. If he is crafy or has done wrestling or judo or is otherwise atheltic and can move, he can pull his marker hand free from your grip with his other hand, push and pull you, change direction with the when he jabs, change the marker from one hand to another and so on and so on and then you really are in trouble. If you try to do any of these techniques - or anything else, for that matter - it has to be perfect: if you are too slow or to fast with your block, you get hit, if you mess your grip, you get hit, if you don't follow the force and go to the wrong technique for the situation or are too slow or fast with it, you get hit, if you move the weapon arm sloppily or too hastily there will not be enough space for the weapon and you get hit. Everything has to go perfectly for any of these techniques to be succesful and the other guy doesn't need to do much in order to foil everything: just correcting the stance a bit and and using your the arm to create or deny space from the defender isn't hard to do at all and it will ruin everything for the other guy. Earlier in this thread there were links to articles that were about what kind of damage a person can withstand from an edged weapon and still keep going so you can possibly still survive the situation even if you get "stabbed only a little bit" but I sure as hell wouldmn't wanna live with a colostomy bag for the rest of my life and in the middle ages those same wounds would probably lead to a horrible death. My point is that I guess this stuff is supposed to be done when wearing some sort of armor or protection. I don't know anything about medieval armors, but dagger looks like a thing to be designed to pierce an armor and in order to do that, you have to strike with great force: the distance seems to be long and you need to take a step to generate enough force and because the dagger is so long, you can't probably even use it if you are tangled in a clinch. Combine this when you are wearing an armor which will protect you from minor gashes of the blade and the techniques start to make more sense. The jujutsu stuff seems to work with the same logic, the knife you practice with is pretty long and you always take a step or half a step when you strike. Without an armor you'd need the biggest stroke of luck to succeed with any of these. Not that it doesn't work, it's all human physiology and gravity and all that, but because the window for succes is extremely small and even more uncertain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Max Manus posted:Been reading through this thread and I got a question regarding firearms. The first rifle where supposedly created around 1520 in Germany, but how difficult where the process of rifling? Could rifled firearms have been created even earlier? More or less. They could make rifled firearms, it was possible, just not always practical in bulk. Others have mentioned issues like powder fouling the barrel and reloading difficulties. Another issue is I think the inaccuracy of smoothbore firearms is kind of overstated. I know Deadliest Warrior is far from a reliable source, but in Ivan the Terrible vs Cortez the smoothbore muskets and arquebuses were able to hit targets reasonably accurately over long range. I think the reason early firearms had accuracy problems was less related to smoothbore barrels and more related to the structure of the rest of the gun - the very earliest hand-gonnes did not exactly have a stock or butt like we would expect to brace against the shoulder. A cannonlock mechanism required one hand to apply match-cord to powder, meaning you cannot use both hands for aiming, and might even have to look at what you are doing instead of looking at the target. A matchlock could have the burning match cord in your line of vision, creating a distraction since your eyes want to focus on the burning thing close to you. My suspicion is that the Minie ball would have made an excellent niche for snipers, but it would not necessarily revolutionise tactics on a grand scale. Even then, accuracy at 400 yards is still a long-range shot, and at those distances 16th century armour would stand a decent chance of protecting the wearer against a 16th century firearm. Targets you would want to snipe would be likely to be more protected. Early muskets for piercing armour were often fork-mounted weapons that depended on a rest to shoot properly, and muskets got progressively lighter over time. In short, I think adding rifling + Minie balls to 15th-16th century firearms would not have had the same impact on warfare as bringing 19th century firearms to a 15th century battlefield. I hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
I agree with you when you say that these muskets (when properly loaded and wadded) are more accurate than most people think they were, but...Railtus posted:A matchlock could have the burning match cord in your line of vision, creating a distraction since your eyes want to focus on the burning thing close to you.   Edit: Also, the lack of a shoulder stock is much less of a problem than undersized balls and people not wadding even though they should, which really fucks up accuracy. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:I started checking out the Codex Wallerstein once again inspired by this thread and searched youtube to find good stuff and found this 90 minute dagger seminar video which is alright. Still, it feels like something is missing when I stare at this stuff. You're absolutely right, if you go bare-handed and unprotected against a bloke with a dagger, you're proper hosed. You're probably going to get murdered, because the other guy can do anything you can do, and also stab you to death. Aren't weapons wonderful? Weapons are wonderful.  A few things for context, though. First, if you want to go to the source, these techniques come from Fiore dei Liberi's The Flower of Battle. It's a cool book about all things medieval fighting. Here's his preface to the dagger chapter: That Fiore chap posted:These five figures are the guards of the dagger; and some are good in armor; and some are good without armor; and some are good both in or out of armor; and some are good in armor but not good without armor; and all these are displayed below. The marker comparison is kind of unfair. A dagger like that is a weapon for stabbing, and although it's got an edge, I would wager you're unlikely to get sliced to death. A dagger like this just doesn't have the sort of heft or geometry to cut very well. (I wonder what the ratio of deadly cuts to deadly stab wounds is nowadays, with knives being less like icepicks and more like, well, knives?) Here's a picture of a dude grabbing the blade of the dagger to disarm the other guy:  But yeah, you have to be really diligently trained and super on point to make that all-important first cover and get into the bind. And you should wear protection. But on the other hand, the same goes for pretty much all martial arts with weapons involved. I tried the rapier yesterday and oh my God closing the line properly was so loving difficult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:But is a colonel going to pay to outfit a regiment with them, even if you could load them as quickly as you can load a smoothbore musket, even if fouling wasn't a problem? Of course not. That was kind of my point, they were more labor intensive to make (and thereby cost more) and thus wouldn't make for standard army issue. HEY GAL posted:And where did you get the idea that making more than a few would be impossible? Why would that be? It's precision work, but I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Not so much impossible, but more like "hey lets not have our trained gunsmiths spend all their time making a few precision weapons instead of producing enough smoothbore guns for the rest of our men" Plus the whole screwing the ball into the barrel thing...how would you get the ball out if the weapon misfired?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:
Ball puller, same as you would a patched ball. Probably a specialty one threaded in the opposite direction from the rifling. People over-emphasize the screwing thing. It's not so much that they're tightly screwing something into the bore, it just has to be guided down in ways that dropping a round ball with a patch on it doesn't. Don't think so much screwing a screw into a board, and more screwing the lid on a bottle of pop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Don't think so much screwing a screw into a board, and more screwing the lid on a bottle of pop. Coke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ball puller, same as you would a patched ball. Probably a specialty one threaded in the opposite direction from the rifling. Oh, I was thinking it was a lot harder than it was. Good to know! HEY GAL posted:... Soda.  Wait, this is how little things like the 30 Years War got started isn't it? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Wait, this is how little things like the 30 Years War got started isn't it? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Oh hey, that's the school I go to. So you live in Helsinki? Terkkuja Porista, ollaan maanmiehiä. Ei oo suomismailia, pitää pärjätä ilman. Siivola posted:You're absolutely right, if you go bare-handed and unprotected against a bloke with a dagger, you're proper hosed. You're probably going to get murdered, because the other guy can do anything you can do, and also stab you to death. Aren't weapons wonderful? Weapons are wonderful. I've been doing martial arts and combat sports for 9 years now and there are a huge bunch of places where they do absolute bat-poo poo stuff against knives and then go "Yep, now I'm immortal" or otherwise there are people who don't understand how dangerous knives/daggers/sharp objects can be. I worked in a children's home for mentally ill kids and teens and about a year ago one of the bigger teens came back drunk with a knife and shut into his room and started breaking the place up. A co-worker of mine, a kinda small unfit woman in her twenties was like "welp, I gotta go get it then!" and she entered the room and wrestled the knife away from a drunk mentally ill violent man who had at least 30 pounds on her. I was not present at the time and when I heard about the incident from her she basically was "Oh man what a fun day that was let's eat lunch" I honestly wanted to beat her senseless. That has to be one of the most irresponsible things I have ever seen and it basically has become a hobby of mine to point out to people how dangerous knives can be and what colostomy bags are. Siivola posted:A few things for context, though. First, if you want to go to the source, these techniques come from Fiore dei Liberi's The Flower of Battle. Sweet, thanks for the link. From what I see after a quick glanze the techniques are mostly the same as in Wallerstein. I'm gonna try to find what techniques would be good without armor, see if they differ greatly from those with armor. Siivola posted:The marker comparison is kind of unfair. A dagger like that is a weapon for stabbing, and although it's got an edge, I would wager you're unlikely to get sliced to death. A dagger like this just doesn't have the sort of heft or geometry to cut very well. (I wonder what the ratio of deadly cuts to deadly stab wounds is nowadays, with knives being less like icepicks and more like, well, knives?) This is true. I had more of a modern day knife in mind, be it a kitchen knife are a knife people have for their work. Siivola posted:But yeah, you have to be really diligently trained and super on point to make that all-important first cover and get into the bind. And you should wear protection. But on the other hand, the same goes for pretty much all martial arts with weapons involved. It's starting to seem to me that a lot/most of traditional martial arts, be it karate, aikido, koryu jujutsu, wing chung or this medieval stuff were meant for fights against "commoners", like thugs and robbers and so on rather than trained soldiers and warriors. Like Wallerstein has techniques where you grap the opponent's fist from the air and you elbow lock it, you can't do that to a trained fighter. There's a whole bunch of stuff that works really well but only against a guy who doesn't know how to grapple or strike, the guy of course is dangerous, it doesn't take a lot to get your weight behind a punch, but if he doesn't have his poo poo straight, you can readily exploit a lot of stuff. You can watch videos on youtube of people fighting and it sure is wobbly, but I don't know how people stab each other, so maybe it's easier/harder to do this techniques in real life than in training, hell if I know. The point is that they gotta work, because you can find the same resolutions to the same problems all around the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I agree with you when you say that these muskets (when properly loaded and wadded) are more accurate than most people think they were, but... While I'm not particularly invested in this point, those pictures look to me like the burning match is very much in your line of sight, at least if you are attempting to sight along the barrel of the weapon to aim. If you mean that you're not supposed to sight directly along the barrel, that makes sense (keep explosions away from your face), but that might hinder aiming a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Like Wallerstein has techniques where you grap the opponent's fist from the air and you elbow lock it, you can't do that to a trained fighter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Nektu posted:I always imagined that realistically stuff like that wasnt really meant as "catch his hand out of the air when he strikes you and do this" but more like "if you happen to catch his hand for whatever reason, do this". Basically this. You can do it if the situation presents itself and it's great, but it's not something you should actively go for. I remember one instance where my fist was caught from the air mid-flight and I got to eat an punch after that, but it has only happened once and I was dead tired at that point of practice so my movement was very sloppy. Anything is possible, but the more there is stuff like that the more it is aimed towards dealing with "regular thugs." The last technique description in Wallerstein begins with "So you wish to rob a peasent.." and it describes how you should grip your dagger's blade almost at the tip and with the remaining inch or two slash a peasent's throat so he will bleed and become frightened and do what you say but there is no real damage done. This is such an excellent description about the life in middle ages and I love it. gently caress knights, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > So you wish to rob a peasant? Ask me about Medieval History & Combat
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:"So you wish to rob a peasent.."  Railtus posted:While I'm not particularly invested in this point, those pictures look to me like the burning match is very much in your line of sight, at least if you are attempting to sight along the barrel of the weapon to aim. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Sweet, thanks for the link. From what I see after a quick glanze the techniques are mostly the same as in Wallerstein. I'm gonna try to find what techniques would be good without armor, see if they differ greatly from those with armor. A fun thing to note about Fiore is how he shows counters and counter-counters to techniques. This clearly isn't a self-defense manual, but a framework for making sure the opponent gets properly stabbed to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Siivola posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > So you wish to rob a peasant? Ask me about Medieval History & Combat Speaking of robbing peasants, everyone should read Meier Helmbrecht. I decided to teach it this semester without having read it before and turns out it's pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Siivola posted:A fun thing to note about Fiore is how he shows counters and counter-counters to techniques. This clearly isn't a self-defense manual, but a framework for making sure the opponent gets properly stabbed to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Nope, those borders settled a while ago and now we coexist. Dirty heathens. It's a soda.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:It's starting to seem to me that a lot/most of traditional martial arts, be it karate, aikido, koryu jujutsu, wing chung or this medieval stuff were meant for fights against "commoners", like thugs and robbers and so on rather than trained soldiers and warriors. Like Wallerstein has techniques where you grap the opponent's fist from the air and you elbow lock it, you can't do that to a trained fighter. There's a whole bunch of stuff that works really well but only against a guy who doesn't know how to grapple or strike, the guy of course is dangerous, it doesn't take a lot to get your weight behind a punch, but if he doesn't have his poo poo straight, you can readily exploit a lot of stuff. You can watch videos on youtube of people fighting and it sure is wobbly, but I don't know how people stab each other, so maybe it's easier/harder to do this techniques in real life than in training, hell if I know. The point is that they gotta work, because you can find the same resolutions to the same problems all around the world. The only situation in which aikido's default practice attack makes realistic sense is when a unarmed attacker tries to stop you from drawing your sword.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:You're not. The butt goes against your chest, not your shoulder, and you don't stoop to it. you are. Why else would historical muskets have sights on them? http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/52/lid/3216 Also, it goes into your chest only a little, a little ways inside from the joint, same as if you're shooting a modern full-powered rifle. of course, you want to close your eyes when you fire because burning powder is gonna fly everywhere. Look at how these dudes turn their heads down when the command to fire is given: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzf0ZiVr9qw Here's some more matchlock video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvD711WP9-M Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:The only situation in which aikido's default practice attack makes realistic sense is when a unarmed attacker tries to stop you from drawing your sword. You mean the grabbing wrist thing? That's not a default practise for anything, its an abstraction of joining the attack and using it to your own ends. Best to think of it like training wheels that you take off much much later. I love aikido but if you want to learn to beat someone up you're best off doing MMA or whatever. Of course if someone actually does grab your wrist they've just made your job a whole lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:you are. Why else would historical muskets have sights on them? http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/52/lid/3216 Are muskets that don't have them? Just the fact that you can find some that have sights don't make the argument invalid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Just google image search "matchlock manual of arms." You see images of people both aiming down the barrel and also keeping their heads up and away from that poo poo as much as possible. It was a relatively young technology and there was no single, dominant form yet. Putting sights on it and looking down the barrel has obvious advantages, especially as the technology advances to involve significantly less burning powder and lit matches inches from your nose. That, plus the simple fact that that's the direction firearms use evolved in, argues pretty strongly in favor of that eventually becoming the dominant form, but there was almost certainly a period where they coexisted side by side. Just looking at the dates of the pictures that you find with the afore mentioned GIS, I'd guestimate that period as probably the 15th century. poo poo, just look at modern handgun techniques. Those have evolved a bunch in the last 100 years, even though in some instances they're being preformed with variations on the same design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Dirty heathens. Drank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Don't you just like aim for a second, pull the trigger then close your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:30
|
|