|
Siivola posted:Hey I need to win an ~internet argument~ with some of my tabletop gamer buddies on IRC. Untrained peasant levies keep coming up, what's a good page to read up on how fighting people tended to be mostly professionals? Farmer-soldiers aren't total myth, but there would still be some degree of professionalism in a Celtic warband or a Goth levy. That's around 800 years before the Medieval period though.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Depending on the period, either my posts or Rodrigo Diaz's posts If I can sort out my books I'm pretty sure I can find where I first definitively read this. I'm fairly sure R. Allen Brown explicitly mentions it in his article on Hastings. John Gillingham might have mentioned it in one of his three commander studies (probably 'Richard I and the Science of War'). I strongly suspect, however, that I read it first in Marjorie Chibnall's article in Anglo-Norman Warfare. Aldo Settia's article in the Journal of Medieval Military History VI is also worth reading. Railtus posted:This book covers the decline of the peasant levy - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...0levies&f=false "As early as the late 11th century"? Bitch, you even heard of Charlemagne? quote:Maurice Keen has also been recommended - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sqtj4rioa9UC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Honestly I've found this book less useful the more I've studied. Clifford Rogers' article on the Infantry Revolution in particular is poorly argued, but even Gillingham's work here is a little sloppy. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
For those that like to dig around in primary sources, the findings of a project called 'The soldier in medieval England' - http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/index.php with muster rolls and a lot of other poo poo from 1369-1453.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
There's a reference in the Annals of Bertin to a group of the "ordinary people" between the Loire and the Seine coming together to fight off a Viking incursion which ends with the aristocracy suppressing their association because they hadn't gone through the proper channels. I bring this example up to suggest both that non-elites seem to have been capable of organizing their own defense and that elites violently disapproved of them doing so. The latter point seems to suggest that elites, whose identity and social prestige rested in large part on a claim to an exclusive ability to practice violence, may be inclined to suppress (and subsequently leave out of historical records) non-elite military activity. On the other hand, in the later Middle Ages the peasants of the Dietmarsch in northern Germany successfully fought off both a nearby archbishop and the Danish kings. I can't remember the sources for this, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
deadking posted:There's a reference in the Annals of Bertin to a group of the "ordinary people" between the Loire and the Seine coming together to fight off a Viking incursion which ends with the aristocracy suppressing their association because they hadn't gone through the proper channels. I bring this example up to suggest both that non-elites seem to have been capable of organizing their own defense and that elites violently disapproved of them doing so. The latter point seems to suggest that elites, whose identity and social prestige rested in large part on a claim to an exclusive ability to practice violence, may be inclined to suppress (and subsequently leave out of historical records) non-elite military activity. Be careful not to read too much into a single event. There is more to fighting than just picking up a stick and taking a swing and more to fighting as a group than just getting together a bunch of the village boys with bigger balls than brains. Your average nomadic warband or society with a strong tradition of peasant levies has to have some way of passing on basic martial skills on the individual level and the group methods by which those skills are best leveraged on the battlefield. Even a break of a generation or two can pose a major problem due to the loss of what we'd call institutional knowledge in any other context today. History is replete with examples that illustrate this, both in the sense of rulers trying to foster and maintain those skills and the systems for passing them on as well as trying to suppress them. I would say it's painting with far too broad a brush to suggest that elites disapproved of these sorts of martial activities on general principle. Just drawing on English history, for example, you can look at the laws mandating regular longbow training and practice on the one hand and later laws forbidding weapons ownership and training in Ireland on the other. I would also point out that while there are certainly examples here and there of plucky peasant uprisings winning battles - many of which become enshrined in later nationalist histories - there are tons of others where they just get the poo poo kicked out of them by the local feudal lord. Finally, and this is a much more subjective view based on a gut assessment that could very well be wrong so don't take it too seriously, I strongly suspect that if you look at these kinds of issues over time the successful instances of peasants rising up against elites are probably clustered earlier and peter out as the middle ages wear on into the early modern period. Europe is a very different place in 1400 than it is in 800, and I don't think it's too big a jump to say that much as royal power generally consolidated during this period, so too rural populations were probably more and more domesticated by the local nobles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
You guys are absolutely marvelous, thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Finally, and this is a much more subjective view based on a gut assessment that could very well be wrong so don't take it too seriously, I strongly suspect that if you look at these kinds of issues over time the successful instances of peasants rising up against elites are probably clustered earlier and peter out as the middle ages wear on into the early modern period. Europe is a very different place in 1400 than it is in 800, and I don't think it's too big a jump to say that much as royal power generally consolidated during this period, so too rural populations were probably more and more domesticated by the local nobles. Lol this is basically the opposite of what happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Be careful not to read too much into a single event. I certainly agree that we shouldn't lean too heavily on a single terse annal entry. Rather, I mention it because I think it raises the issue of elite hostility and the silences within a lot of medieval sources, which complicate the study of non-elites in general, but especially non-elite violence. The Annals of Bertin entry perhaps hints at a greater organizational capacity among non-elites, for which it is relatively rare among early medieval sources. Whether this is an exception or the rule we can't say. In fact, it's probably safer to lean towards the former. That said, there's a lot about non-elites in the early Middle Ages which we just don't know, but I think it probably goes a bit too far to assume absence where we have silence. You're also totally correct about the ways certain historiographies (nationalist, but also Marxist) probably distort certain peasant uprisings to fit their framework. I'd scoff at them, but later generations will probably say exactly the same things about us. To your last point: I actually get the opposite impression that anti-elite revolts get more common as the Middle Ages progress. Between roughly 500 and 1000, I can only think of a few Merovingian tax revolts (which might not have involved non-elites), the Saxon Stellinga in the 9th century, and a peasant revolt in Normandy over the rights to use communal land. By comparison there are a ton of examples from the later Middle Ages (most famously the Jacquerie and the English peasants' revolt of 1381), culminating in the 16th-century German Peasants War. We're well out of my zone of familiarity at that point, though, so I can't speak with much confidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Why does everyone always forget the poor ministerials?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Lol this is basically the opposite of what happens. Like I said, just a complete stab based on a general impression I'd gotten. Thanks for the correction
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Why does everyone always forget the poor ministerials? Because technical unfree status doesn't make you a bona fide non-elite!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:43
|
|
deadking posted:Because technical unfree status doesn't make you a bona fide non-elite! Ministerials are both cool and integral to understanding medieval Germany.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Oh, absolutely! They just aren't "peasant knights" like some people (me as an undergraduate) think they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Since we're talking about professional soldiers, burghers and peasants, I'm kinda wondering where on that scale the Hussites are located?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Yo Charly how much easier is it to make arrows with bamboo? Is it noticeably faster/cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:"As early as the late 11th century"? Bitch, you even heard of Charlemagne? I totally admit I was using sources like a drunk using a lamppost – for support rather than illumination. JaucheCharly posted:Since we're talking about professional soldiers, burghers and peasants, I'm kinda wondering where on that scale the Hussites are located? I interpret the Hussites as professional soldiers largely, or perhaps militia: they had well-informed tactics that make more sense from soldiers than essentially civilians picking up arms. Their weaponry was crossbows and handguns and pikes and other military arms that I would consider out of place on untrained peasants. They had and relied heavily upon artillery, and it is a rarely mentioned fact that your average medieval peasant did not have a cannon or haufnice (crowd gun, medieval howitzer) in the garden shed. In short, they fought like trained and disciplined and well-equipped soldiers. And then you get images like this:  I think if they were peasants, at least in the mind of the artists, they would not be depicted as so well-armoured.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Is there any particular reason why they always drew/painted humans like they're hit with downs and fetal alcohol syndrome?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Yo Charly how much easier is it to make arrows with bamboo? Is it noticeably faster/cheaper? I'm not sure if it's not about the same in the end. Wood needs to be seasoned for a year or longer, bamboo too. Here's the process for korean sports arrows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK5INvoNTdk here for japanese kyudo arrows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyejbipavWw Bulk stuff for war will not get that much care, but operations like sorting diameter, weightmatching, straightening, sanding etc. are the same. Ash wood gets sawn to small squared timbers, gets planed round, sanded, constantly checked for the right format and weight, etc. You can also take shoots, and that will be very similar to how bamboo arrows are made, but these aren't good for war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Does shooting an arrow ruin the shaft? Hitting something solid with it, I mean. Fantasy novels usually feature characters recovering arrows, buy was that actually a thing after battles?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Peasant levy doesnt make sense for a whole load of reasons logically. Sure in a last gasp or some kind of desparate times (revolts) you might see civillians taking up arms but socially, economically and militarily its dumb, it was known as dumb and like just like now people didnt like to do dumb things. I dont wonder if a lot of the ideas of peasant levy is from renaissance period scoffing at medieval primatives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
If you shoot something solid they'll be ruined eventually. Ottoman military arrows are painted red (or orange) and white at the nock and the shaft where the fletching is. That makes finding them easier. Red and white is the best combination if you shoot outdoors. Arrows are so much work, you don't just shoot and forget Power Khan fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Peasant levies are terrifyingly effective upon meeting certain conditions. You need a well organised state that can cast its central authority deep through society, down into individual villages. You need some way of motivating your peasant army to fight. You need a state with a large tax base that can command large quantities of arms to be built. You need a well organised transport network that can muster your peasants to a central point. And you need a cheap, mass produced weapon, with a simple drill, that is enough of a force multiplier to turn an untrained peasant into a knight killer. It's essentially how Napoleon rampaged throughout Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:If you shoot something solid they'll be ruined eventually. Ottoman military arrows are painted red (or orange) and white at the nock and the shaft where the fletching is. That makes finding them easier. Red and white is the best combination if you shoot outdoors. What would "ruined" entail? I imagine you would shoot it until it snapped upon impact. Did arrows get pulled out of service before that point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Basically you should always check your arrows before you shoot by inspecting them for cracks and flexing them. Why? Google "arrow accident" and look at the pics that feature hands. Wood doesn't open up like a flower, as carbon does (bamboo kinda does), it will explode into nasty splinters. You can fix them if they're broken clean by splicing the shaft to a new piece of wood. Most of the time it will break in the weakest spot, and since even longbow war arrows are tapered at the foot, that means that they'll break there. Nocks also break sometimes. It can also be repaired by splice. Mughal arrows are made of multiple pieces of bamboo, so that they appear to have a barrel taper. Bamboo arrows will be repaired with the same method that they use for putting them together like this. It's a small piece of wood that's tapered like a pencil on both sides, the broken pieces of the shaft are carved to match them on both sides. Bamboo is scary though, it splits easy along the grain. I never repaired that. Too dangerous. What fucks arrows even worse than shooting them right into a wall? Glancing blows. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Ha, wrong history thread 
Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
The good news is I found this. http://www.pavelskryja.cz/home.html The bad news is there's no complete translation of his website into any languages I speak and my browser won't automatically translate Czech any more. Is there anything on here that looks like a price list to anyone, or should I email the guy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Lol this is basically the opposite of what happens. So what did happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:08
|
|
Jewcoon posted:So what did happen? Well, one point: if you think the government is centralising, what makes you think it's the local nobles who are going to be the ones making GBS threads on peasant revolts? In fairness, you'd have to start getting geographically specific. England and France are obviously much more centralised than Germany (at least outside of Prussia) - and as with everything, it's all very different in Italy. I would also beware of tendencies to always set up nobility in opposition to peasantry. In Italy in particular this is a terrible fit - the popoli in Italian cities are usually reliant on the support of noble houses, as are noble factions who rely on their patrimony external to the city. The Guelf and Ghibbeline distinction, likewise, knows no real class distinction. You also always have to be thinking about your excluded middle - burghers, monks, ministerials. What are these people doing in this story?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:So what did happen? Take your pick. The Jacquerie in France, the Great Rising of 1381 in England, Ciompi in Florence, Peasant's War in Germany if you extend the time frame and many more that I most certainly don't know about. But Late Medieval Europe and popular uprisings going together is not a controversial idea in the least. Then you have the edge cases where you can't call it a peasant revolt but still had an anti-monarchical and anti-aristocratic bend, such as the emergence of the Swiss Confederacy who seemed to truck along just fine with no kings and served as an inspiration for many would-be peasant rebels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Peasant levies are terrifyingly effective upon meeting certain conditions. You need a well organised state that can cast its central authority deep through society, down into individual villages. You need some way of motivating your peasant army to fight. You need a state with a large tax base that can command large quantities of arms to be built. You need a well organised transport network that can muster your peasants to a central point. And you need a cheap, mass produced weapon, with a simple drill, that is enough of a force multiplier to turn an untrained peasant into a knight killer. Also see the state of Qin in ancient China.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Hey guys, I got something last week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
By the way, general update to one of my earlier answers: I was asked about scale armour, and I said it was far from common in Europe; this effigy at Minster Abbey depicts a knight apparently wearing lamellar bracers as part of a set of transitional armour, early 1300s. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Railtus posted:By the way, general update to one of my earlier answers: Cool stuff. Speaking of lamellar, what was normally used for the lacing? Leather strips? I imagine wire would be more durable and immune to rot, but would it be prohibitively heavy and/or expensive?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
whoops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Railtus posted:By the way, general update to one of my earlier answers: Bit trivial, but is there a cultural reason for the crossed legs down there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Bit trivial, but is there a cultural reason for the crossed legs down there? Look at his face. He really needs to go to the bathroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Want that beard so bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
There's a lot of talk about soldiers having PTSD and mental health problems after returning from combat, but I've started to wonder how much there were mental health issues with medieval people due to violence and fighting? Like how unstable would you have to be after surviving several battles where you cut people in two with a sword?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
One thing that I heard (maybe from Hegel or Railtus one of the other history threads regulars) was that medieval warfare tended to be a lot of marching with a little fighting. So, like, you go on a campaign, you may fight the enemy one or two days out of the 80 you're on campaign for or whatever. During the periods of marching, you're not in much physical danger (except from disease, I guess)? So the constant stress that you saw in 20th century war just wasn't possible, ergo less PTSD. Although I wonder about survivors of long sieges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
I think it's just different types of stress. Like you alluded to, in the 19th/20th century it's the constant stress of being besieged, trench warfare, being hit by artillery, essentially a feeling of being unable to escape the violence, that leads to more cases of what we consider PTSD. I think you're right that someone who survived a siege would definitely have those kind of symptoms. However, I think actual combat in the medieval period may have been more stressful for the individual. We have records from soldiers in the American Civil War, for example, of soldiers who intentionally missed, we've found muskets that had been loaded multiple times and never fired, we know some soldiers in WW2 might have never fired their weapon, so there's clearly a certain level of guilt involved with knowing that you are harming or potentially killing another human being. Obviously we can't be certain that it's always been this way, but it seems like natural human instinct to be averse to killing people, even when it's people who are also trying to harm you. More contemporary soldiers clearly struggled with this fact even though they could kill from a distance, relatively anonymously. On the other hand, a medieval soldier would have to maim or kill his enemies face-to-face, or be maimed or killed himself. There's no ambiguity regarding whether or not you killed people, and I'd imagine that's a tremendous toll on the psyche. So while you might not have PTSD in the modern sense, almost every medieval soldier would have had to been desensitized to violence and murder to some extent because of what they've seen and experienced first hand. I don't know if that type of behavior falls under PTSD, to be honest, so if anyone else has more knowledge, or a better opinion, I'd be interested in reading more about the topic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:05
|
|
