|
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?) With a knife, thrusting attacks are much more likely to disrupt a vital organ or sever a major blood vessel, which are the main causes of death by bladed weapon. However, cutting attacks are still debilitating and dangerous, particularly because they only require contact with the knife to cause damage. The issue isn't that you'll get cut to death, it's that the cut can hurt you at any time. For example, say you successfully trap the weapon hand but then when you attempt the standing armlock or the disarm, he defends and as he's twisting free he drags the edge along your forearm. A deep cut the length of your forearm won't kill you, but it will hurt you and make you less able to defend yourself against subsequent attacks. This is the actual point of the marker comparison--somebody can "win" a knife defense drill by handfighting and executing traps, but afterwards they might be covered in defensive wounds. Had that been a real knife, those wounds would have been a major problem, possibly to the point of preventing them from effectively defending themselves.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
I was exaggerating because correcting Hegel always deserves embellishment. No, not every musketeer or arquebusier would use his sight or sights every time. However the crossbow was shouldered and aimed looking along the top of the weapon, and so it seems probable that such practices carried over to the firearms that replaced them. Cyrano4747 posted: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. the only pictures in aforementioned GIS that actually come from a manual of arms are all are all 17th or 18th century dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:the only pictures in aforementioned GIS that actually come from a manual of arms are all are all 17th or 18th century dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
My bad, I thought they were earlier. That was the impression I got from reading a few descriptions. Just ignore that as nonsense, then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Why did the Holy Roman empire fail to become a centralized, coherent state like France did?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
So I've been interesting in how wounds/infection were treated in history for a while now, and relatively recently I've been looking at honey's antbacterial properties. In an /r/askhistorian thread(probably the only subreddit I would ever recommend due to heavy heavy moderation, although the quality can still vary), I found the following comment after someone mentioned that honey was used to treat wounds:quote:First let me start by saying that a food's ability to spoil is judged by AW "Water Activity." This value (0 to 1) expresses how many water molecules are un-bound in food. Bound water molecules are those that are tightly bonded to carbohydrates and other nutrients. Un-bound water molecules, on the other hand, are free to be used by bacteria, yeast, or mold. Thus a food with high AW will spoil quickly and likely needs to be refrigerated. So I guess my question is-how common was this? People knew that it was helpful in this way at least as far back as the early 1000s, but I don't really know how easy it was throughout history for normal people and doctors, respectively, to get their hands on honey, and in warfare I doubt that honey could typically be acquired in large enough quantities for it to be standard to use. So was it a typical folk remedy used by whoever, or was it mostly something used by professionals who could easily afford it? And additionally, was it ever commonly used to treat the wounds of soldiers? I know bandages with honey were used for arrow wounds but I don't know if it was viable to do this for everyone or if it would be primarily for more important people. Sorry if that's a bit broad. LazyMaybe fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Getting back to the 100-man fight, this didn't go so well. Dr. Khorasani's protective equipment was inappropriate and he got injured, but still went on for over 20mins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DcniyTOToY http://www.moshtaghkhorasani.com/razmafzar/events/19-100-man-weapon-fight-prague-czech-republic/
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Why did the Holy Roman empire fail to become a centralized, coherent state like France did? One reason is probably that there was no single city in Germany that was as prominent in every field as Paris was (and is) in France. In fact, although it's certainly a coherent state, Germany is still not centralized the way France is. Just compare the population of Paris and its suburbs to the population of Berlin... Beyond the raw numbers, Paris is 1/6th of France's population. There's no real equivalent in Germany (well, there's the Ruhr, but it's telling that it's more populated than Berlin). You could make the same comparison with London. As for why Paris started dominating France that way, I honestly couldn't tell you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Kassad posted:One reason is probably that there was no single city in Germany that was as prominent in every field as Paris was (and is) in France. In fact, although it's certainly a coherent state, Germany is still not centralized the way France is. Just compare the population of Paris and its suburbs to the population of Berlin... Beyond the raw numbers, Paris is 1/6th of France's population. There's no real equivalent in Germany (well, there's the Ruhr, but it's telling that it's more populated than Berlin). You could make the same comparison with London. Not sure I'd buy that. England\GB and France have been considered centralized states (depending on your definition of both) for what 600~ years give or take? Germany hasn't even hit 200 yet. Population growth and economic activity seems to get pulled towards capital cities over time and England\France have had centuries of this over Germany without any real effort to alter it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
I'm still a big fan of the dynastic argument. Having one major dynasty at a time (regardless of what family that particular dynasty may actually be) with a solid claim to a royal title that covers a significant chunk of what we consider the modern nation-states goes a long way towards making people think of it all as one big unit. Even during periods when the dynasty is relatively weak (civil war, periods where local nobility manages to claw back some power and rights, etc) the whole argument is still framed in terms of how powerful a specific centralized monarchy is. Having two major dynasties that control territory both inside and outside your linguistic and cultural sphere does a lot to change that dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Why did the Holy Roman empire fail to become a centralized, coherent state like France did? This is a pretty good question. It is...incredibly complicated, probably past my ability to answer it comprehensively, but I'll try. So, as I'm sure we all know the end of the Carolingian basically established the vague outlines of what would eventually become France and Germany. Early on, the Kingdom of France and the HRE were actually quite similar: Hugh Capet (who you can probably call the first King of France) was actually elected. Ironically enough, the French kings were actually quite a bit less wealthy/powerful than the emperors were for several centuries. They basically ruled over the area of Paris and the immediate vicinity and were, at varying times, less powerful than the big dukes in France (Normandy, Burgundy, Aquitaine). Basically, the crown of France was a title with some moral authority and a fairly wealthy demense, but it didn't have much of the feudal fealties and the like that we think of when we think of KINGS. The Holy Roman Emperors were generally in a similar position; they were usually themselves wealthy duke-types, but their title of Emperor didn't carry a whole lot of legal weight with other nobles who were essentially their peers. The big shift occurred in the 13th century for both entities. For the French, it was the start of the centuries-long conflict between the Capetians and the Plantagenets. This provided a way for the Capetians to expand their personal demense significantly, and by the mid 13th century the French king was finally, generally speaking, the most powerful and wealthiest noble in the region. This had a lot of implications: now the dukes couldn't just do as they pleased, and gradually the territories of the great dukes fell to the French monarchy: Aquitaine and Normandy through the HYW, Burgundy and Brittany through a combination of marriages and divisions. So, by the end of the 16th century, the Kingdom of France was pretty close to what we'd recognize as France geographically today: from the Pyrenees to the Alps to the Rhine. This had the French king in an ideal position to take full advantage of the consolidation of power and wealth at the top of the political spectrum that occurred during the later middle ages and resulted in the immensely powerful absolutist monarchs that emerged throughout the period, French most of all. In the HRE however, the 13th century had the complete opposite effect: the "Great Interregnum" defined the period, where there was basically so much infighting amongst the electors that no one could decide on an emperor. The major nobles took advantage of the uncertainty to gobble up tons of wealth and power, so much so that their positions became basically unassailable. They further consolidated their roles with the Golden Bull of 1356, which more or less locked the electors lands and authorities in for the remainder of the empire and meant that the position of emperor could never really hope to accomplish any serious consolidation of territory under an imperial banner. It wasn't really until the unification of Prussia and Pomerania that there was a significant enough centralization of power in Germany to begin that process of consolidation. There are a million other factors: the effects of the Crusades and Reformation and the 30 Years War, the vast cultural and linguistic differences within the HRE that weren't necessarily as pronounced in France, the proximity of other major powers, reven stuff like climate and agriculture all had effects to varying degrees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Yeah there's a thousand different reasons. The simple one that I like the most is that French and British nobility adopted Agnatic Primogeniture succession law, which assigned all titles to the eldest son (or sometimes daughter), whereas the Germanic nobility retained their Salic Law that would divide titles amongst the sons. Primogeniture had a centralizing effect over generations, whereas Salic Law encouraged everyone to vie for their piece of the pie. In further evidence of this: Regions like Ireland and Wales that retained Gavelkind, which is the British/Norman equivalent of Salic succession, had similar problems with organizing and consolidating power as compared to their Primogeniture-neighbors. Salic Law and Gavelkind were probably more fair to individuals, as there were fewer junior princes that ended up with nothing more than a country manor, but it's difficult to talk about fairness in a time where a country manor meant you were better off than 99% of people. I'm not sure either method was particularly better for reducing internecine conflict - Salic Law meant that there was lots of people who were capable of fighting for their own petty reasons, whereas Primogeniture meant that succession wars would get really bad since it was the only game in town.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So, as I'm sure we all know the end of the Carolingian basically established the vague outlines of what would eventually become France and Germany. Early on, the Kingdom of France and the HRE were actually quite similar: Hugh Capet (who you can probably call the first King of France) was actually elected. Ironically enough, the French kings were actually quite a bit less wealthy/powerful than the emperors were for several centuries. They basically ruled over the area of Paris and the immediate vicinity and were, at varying times, less powerful than the big dukes in France (Normandy, Burgundy, Aquitaine). Basically, the crown of France was a title with some moral authority and a fairly wealthy demense, but it didn't have much of the feudal fealties and the like that we think of when we think of KINGS. The Holy Roman Emperors were generally in a similar position; they were usually themselves wealthy duke-types, but their title of Emperor didn't carry a whole lot of legal weight with other nobles who were essentially their peers. There is a lot in here that is either hosed up chronologically or misrepresentative of historical attitudes. The Plantagenet-Capetian wars really began under Henry II, with the most politically dangerous of his reign being the Young King's revolt of 1173-4. Normandy fell under Philip II Augustus' possession in 1204, and it was really Philip Augustus who did the most to secure royal power in this century due partly to his own skill in war and partly to John's crippling incompetence. From John's humiliating losses in the early 13th century to the beginning of the Hundred Years War in 1337 the King of France was able to centralize quite effectively, but this puts the largest shift at the start of the 13th century, not the middle. Even with this, however, there were still major divisions and questions of power in royal authority, enough so that the Dukes of Burgundy, allied with the Kings of England, were still a major threat to French power in the 15th c. I would also argue that the French monarchy by the 16th century was not nearly as centralized as the English one, which fits with the historical trend. The strength of the Church in France is an especially powerful source of opposition, and it is telling that Henry IV of France converted from Protestantism to accede to the throne, rather than convert his country as Henry VIII of England was able to do. Additionally, even in the period of relative French royal weakness, the king was still treated as the ultimate arbitrator of major disputes. Louis VI was actually fairly good at expanding royal power to this end, and thus it was he who put forward William Clito as the new Count of Flanders after the death of Charles the Good, and who rallied and organized the great princes of France for the defense of the kingdom against potential German invasion in 1124. Not only did the Duke of Burgundy and the Counts of Nevers, Vermandois, Blois provide substantial contingents to the army, which gathered at Rheims, but even the Dukes of Aquitaine, Anjou, and Brittany summoned hosts, though they did not arrive before the German host disbanded (making it ultimately something of a non-event). It is worth noting as well that Theobald, Count of Blois, was one of Louis's most significant and powerful enemies during his reign. The French monarchy was weak in this period, yes, but in times of emergency it was clearly still the ultimate source of authority in France.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Oh hey, HEMA in the media! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/sports/for-longsword-a-comeback-ages-in-the-making.html?ref=sports
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Oh hey, HEMA in the media! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/sports/for-longsword-a-comeback-ages-in-the-making.html?ref=sports  If anyone's in Central Europe, this coming weekend is the White Mountain reenactment in Prague. Come there and watch me! (nobody will be able to see anything because of the smoke, but I'll be there.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:No, not every musketeer or arquebusier would use his sight or sights every time. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
And that sort of thing is why, when a battallion forms hollow square, the muskets stand in front of the pike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
I really enjoy watching people make things, so here is something tangentially related to medieval history & combat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYWDuXadosA
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
I am mystified by the existence of places like the Teutonic State that existed around the Baltics and Central Europe back in the late Middle Ages. What was it like to be ruled by a military order instead of living under a king or duke?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I am mystified by the existence of places like the Teutonic State that existed around the Baltics and Central Europe back in the late Middle Ages. What was it like to be ruled by a military order instead of living under a king or duke? More or less like living under a king or duke. It also wasn't just a strange borderlands of Europe thing - it was really common for there to be significant land holdings associated with Catholic offices all through this period.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I am mystified by the existence of places like the Teutonic State that existed around the Baltics and Central Europe back in the late Middle Ages. What was it like to be ruled by a military order instead of living under a king or duke? I will preface this by saying I really love the military orders, but I know less about their domestic policy (and would love to know more) than their foreign policy. From what I understand, it was much the same for the common person. Or at least, when I did research them, I heard very little about contrasts between secular and order rule. Another aspect is the Holy Roman Empire had prince-abbots and prince-bishops, and again this was largely the same as living in the domain of a secular lord. The same general system of government still applied. The Teutonic Knights did have problems from taxing their subjects heavily, and from imposing Christianity. However, none of this is unique to monastic states. I should point out that the Grandmaster of the Teutonic Knights eventually became a Duke (when he and a good chunk of the order converted to Protestantism). The Knights Hospitaller seem to have been far more efficient (if not necessarily effective) governors, in the sense that they did a lot with very limited holdings. Rhodes became extremely well-developed under their rule, with some very modern defences, which is quite impressive for such a small state. I suspect this efficiency was worth commenting on. Their fleets did a lot of protecting the Mediterranean, and employed the corso and vista (essentially privateering and patrols/confiscating cargo) as a way of raising funds. The Hospitallers did not get into the same wars with other Christians that the Teutonic Knights did. I think if you're looking for a contrast between kings and grandmasters, i suspect the Hospitallers would be a better order to research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Did people really believe in dragons, fairies, unicorns, and all that stuff? Was it just commoners or did even nobility think this? How did the concept of elves/fairies evolve over the centuries?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Did people really believe in dragons, fairies, unicorns, and all that stuff? Was it just commoners or did even nobility think this? How did the concept of elves/fairies evolve over the centuries? Short answer, yes. The long answer is sort of. It's kind of hard to pin down how much people actually believed but we can definitely say that there was a strong belief in the supernatural. This of course varies from person to person and their worldview. We've already had examples of in this thread of a monk writing a beastiary, including mermaids, and essentially calling bullshit on it. At the same time there was a serious discussion about whether people who were part animal had souls or not. Witches were seen at various times as being total bunk or the real poo poo depending on the place, along with the various spirits, mini-deities and other pagan holdovers existed. There is also an argument that some of the beliefs were used as forms of passive resistance. For example in France there was a belief in 'sky people' who'd come along during storms and steal or destroy your crops. Did people actually believe that visitors from above were stealing their food? Maybe. It's also possible that it was a convenient thing to invoke at tax time and explain to the Lord why you suddenly had less to give him. Either way, some of the belief is genuine. My soviet history professor told us while visiting a relative's farm in Ukraine he was sharing a beer with his cousin. The beer was warm and the cousin remarked, "I'm sorry the beer is warm. The fridge isn't working. Y'know, witches." Testikles fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Also weren't dragons, as described by medieval bestiaries, mentioned in basically the same light as elephants, another animal from another land that these people would not ever see-and who were their mortal enemies who they would strangle with their powerful tails? I don't think they were thought of as fire-breathing during that period either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I will preface this by saying I really love the military orders, but I know less about their domestic policy (and would love to know more) than their foreign policy. Wow! Yeah, that's neat! Thanks for answering! So basically if you were an ordinary person you'd be a vassal of some sort, of the order? Did they divide up the administration of their realms to local governors or something? Or were they pretty much just feudal lords in everything but name?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
What was that big rear end huge ship that I think the knights of Malta had that supposedly had gardens and poo poo on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Did people really believe in dragons, fairies, unicorns, and all that stuff? Was it just commoners or did even nobility think this? How did the concept of elves/fairies evolve over the centuries? I had a professor once who started an entire semester's worth of lectures by trying to help us all understand the mindset of the late medieval/early modern peasant (this was a course on the Reformation and the 30 years war). For some reason it has always stuck with me. Basically, things we think of as "supernatural" were very, very real for these people, as real as things like radio waves or any other thing that exists outside of the visible spectrum are for you and I. There was absolutely no doubt that demons or the devil did things to people, and there was no doubt that things like grace provided a sort of shield against these things, which is why things like indulgences and penance were treated so seriously. If you think about it, in a society that predates germ theory, the idea of invisible supernatural things causing diseases and wrecking crops doesn't seem all that ridiculous...maybe less ridiculous than the idea that these misfortunes are caused by microscopically small things that are sometimes useful and sometimes harmful and currently live on your skin and in your body by the billions. Elves, for example, caused all kinds of diseases by shooting people with magic arrows and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Did people really believe in dragons, fairies, unicorns, and all that stuff? Was it just commoners or did even nobility think this? How did the concept of elves/fairies evolve over the centuries? Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, alien abductions, a dinosaur living in Africa, ghosts, ESP, the list goes on. People are stupid and believe in stupid things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, alien abductions, a dinosaur living in Africa, ghosts, ESP, the list goes on. You're stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You're stupid. The post/avatar combination is gold. Just wanted to add that there was a post in the Rome/Greece thread that said people digging up dinosaur bones or bones of ancient beasts probably help confirmed some of their theories too. If you somehow dug up the head of a T-Rex while mining or something, you'd probably assume it was the skull of a dragon. Found a mammoth bone that looked really like a human leg bone? Must have been a giant or if you found the whole thing maybe it was Behemoth from the Bible. People are very good at solving mysteries using only the information they have at hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Even when reading annals written long after the middle ages you occasionally come across entries about people being attacked by blood drinking ghosts or someone spotting a sea serpent when collecting driftwood by the shore in between entries about more mundane happenings. So obviously even educated men believed in the supernatural enough to document paranormal events.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Cross posting from the ancient rome thread since I think it has more to do with the MRE.Frostwerks posted:What was that word that i've seen mentioned in this thread for "coin" style armor. It's a pretty neat word from what little I remember and I'd remember it in an instant if I see it. Frostwerks posted:For some reason I'm leaning towards bezanted, which is I think the currency of the MRE, but I can't find poo poo about it on google. I know I read it first in either this or maybe the other war threads. Also, Frostwerks posted:What was that big rear end huge ship that I think the knights of Malta had that supposedly had gardens and poo poo on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
I understand there were periods where you had to drink beer as it was your primary calorie source and without germ theory or sanitation water was a risky proposition. I understand it's small beer which is not as strong, but would this mean that everyone had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Wouldn't even 1 or 2% beer is going to affect the baby if it's the only safe thing to drink and where you get your energy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Here in the mountainous areas, babies got cotton pacifiers dipped in rum or any kind of schnaps available, so that they would sleep well. That's the 1800s. Something else, far more troubling: Rauchstuben. I don't know how to translate that properly, so have a look at the modernized version Rauchküche and imagine more smoke and soot :  http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauchk%C3%BCche It wasn't in the 19th century that the state started to forbid them and force people to build proper chimneys, but in the early 1800s. The driving force behind that was the military, who realized that people who lived in places like that were actually too mentally challenged to be soldiers. Read it again: too stupid for the infantry. So how do these Rauchstuben work? Either, there's a central opening above the fire, where the smoke climbs up into the roof (where the grain is stored) - the sleeping rooms are all built around it, so that they're relatively warm (icecold for modern tastes). Or if the house doesn't have multiple floors, the smoke just goes through the flooring in the ceiling, into the roof, where they stored foodstuffs. The result was, people were practically gassing themselves. Actually, there's still some farmhouses in the mountains that are over 500 years old. A quick search on google and there's apparently a place in Wenns that's 700 years old and still standing. W-T-F.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
So maybe we should view this period of history as being populated by, uh unfortunately literally, developmentally disabled people? Because that makes it much more depressing 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:So maybe we should view this period of history as being populated by, uh unfortunately literally, developmentally disabled people? Because that makes it much more depressing Nah, people today are just as dumb if not more so. We have the internet and the scientific method and still believe in all kinds of dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
I figured out the boat. It was the Santa Anna. Still wondering about the bezanted armor.JaucheCharly posted:Read it again: too stupid for the infantry. What, did marine corps not exist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I understand there were periods where you had to drink beer as it was your primary calorie source and without germ theory or sanitation water was a risky proposition. I understand it's small beer which is not as strong, but would this mean that everyone had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Wouldn't even 1 or 2% beer is going to affect the baby if it's the only safe thing to drink and where you get your energy? The thing with FAS is that nowadays we've sort of been conditioned to think that a pregnant woman even smelling alcohol will cause her to give birth to a blind limbless corpse. Alcohol in limited amounts during pregnancy won't hurt anything, but the problem is that there isn't really a good way to find out what "limited amounts" really means. So, quite rightly, the medical community at large recommends no alcohol just to be on the safe side. That being said, my girlfriend's dad, who is a rather opinionated OB/GYN, has always told his patients and his friends/family that a drink a day won't hurt anything at all. So, that being said, consuming small/table beer in normal medieval quantities wasn't going to have much of any effect on things...the total amount of alcohol you'd consume over a day of drinking small beer is about the same as a glass of modern wine. Women who drank enough to get drunk regularly would have problems of course, but without access to strong beer or wine or spirits (which most people did not have regularly) it was actually pretty hard to consume enough alcohol to cause problems. So, I'm sure that FAS was around during the period, but compared to what we saw through Europe and the US during the 18th-mid 20th centuries I'm betting it was pretty lightweight. There's a pretty good reason why FAS was first documented during the Gin Craze. Malnutrition on the other hand WAS a huge problem for medieval pregnant women. The nutrients/calories in beer and wine were pretty critical for these people and cutting it out of their diet would have been a big issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
About the topic of magic and superstition, even smart people will, more often than not, believe the things their culture tells them to. Don't we also believe in things we can't directly see? Everyone lives in a world of meanings, formed by their culture--it's not just that things happen, it's the reasons things happen and how they're connected. If you're interested, I effortposted about early modern military superstitions a while back in the other milhist thread, beginning with this post and continuing for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:Nah, people today are just as dumb if not more so. We have the internet and the scientific method and still believe in all kinds of dumb poo poo. Ever worked in tech support? The majority of people today are at least as dull as the majority of people were back then. What sets them apart is the fact that now they can now use cars and electricity to win the darwin award. They may be able to read an write to a degree, but GOD, they cannot understand what you tell them or ask to read and understand the most simple instructions. No matter if they have a degree or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:43
|
|