|
Siivola posted:Out of curiousity, what sort of shoes do you wear when re-enacting? http://re-enactment-shoes.co.uk/
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Cloth armor were widespread and really common. Everyone wore them, from infantry to knights and kings. I should have phrased that better. I meant were they like quilted and stuffed with batting, or made with many layers of fabric glued/stitched together, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
I kinda wonder how you protect the linothorax from moisture. It's not a practical armor that you could wear when marching in lovely weather, or likewise sweating heavily. Heavy varnish and storing it in a box? It also smells like when you don't wash your cock for weeks when you melt and dry it over and over
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Due to the glues used? I suppose a buff coat with a pair of shirts essentially fulfils the same function while being warmer
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
Yes. It's basically gellatine, which will start to rot when it doesn't dry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I should have phrased that better. I meant were they like quilted and stuffed with batting, or made with many layers of fabric glued/stitched together, or something else? most of it was multiple layers of fabric (Dan Howard says 20-30 for standalone armour, 7-10 for padding under the armour). There was also armour stuffed with batting and armour that was a combination of those techniques. The tightness of the stitching of course has an effect on how good the armour is. No glue afaik though. FreudianSlippers posted:Were medieval mercenaries mostly noblemen? No. There were some of those but a preponderance of commoners (especially if you count "gentry" as commoners). Of course, "mercenary" doesn't always mean the same thing in the period. I've got a couple of posts that talk about these things but will have to dig around to find them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Because I can swing around a 50 pound "great sword" in Dark Souls with ONE HAND. Of course, the source for the 40lb sword seems to be the same legends that say that guy was decapitated during the battle, and then continued to fight with his 40lb two-handed sword in one hand and his own severed head in the other until he had completed his vow. It's hard for something to be more obviously a 'our dude is awesome as gently caress' bragtalk, so the real problem is that anyone read that story and thought any of it should be approached as fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Of course, the source for the 40lb sword seems to be the same legends that say that guy was decapitated during the battle, and then continued to fight with his 40lb two-handed sword in one hand and his own severed head in the other until he had completed his vow. It's hard for something to be more obviously a 'our dude is awesome as gently caress' bragtalk, so the real problem is that anyone read that story and thought any of it should be approached as fact. The forums poster forever memorialized by  caught my attention by insisting that Homer should be treated as a factual account of events.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Why were medieval and early modern European cities such festering shitholes compared to basically every other place that had cities anywhere at any time, including Europe itself before 300 and after 1800? They certainly had the technology to clean their loving poo poo up if they wanted to, the Indus Valley civilization lived in 3000 loving BC and barely had metalworking, and they could at least not live surrounded by their own poo poo. What's Europe's excuse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
They weren't as bad a pop history makes them out to be. I don't think medieval cities ever got as big as the cities you're comparing them to
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
A few comments I missed.Jabarto posted:Wasn't there an article a while back that mathematically concluded that a sword would have to be something like 60' long to weigh 15 kg? How do you define the difference between linothorax and padded jacks? 30 layer cloth jacks were certainly known about in the medieval period and widely acknowledged to be effective armour. http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_quilted.html Often the terminology for cloth armour tends to avoid neat classifications. A gambeson could be an alternative name for an arming coat worn mostly to support the primary armour on top, or it could be a name for a heavy stand-alone armour. FreudianSlippers posted:Were medieval mercenaries mostly noblemen? To my knowledge, no. The Catalan Company in 1300, for instance, tended to have a high infantry-to-cavalry ratio. Forgive me using a Wiki article for this purpose, but the numbers on the Catalan Company show a high number of light foot compared to those equipped to fight as the nobility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company - you get numbers like 4000 Almogavars and 1500 knights. Later on, mercenaries got more formalised, but it kind of depends on area. The Swiss mercenaries were certainly not all nobles, they tended to be extremely professional and supplement the mountaineer’s frugal way of life with armed service. The landsknecht were not (though they are arguably more a Renaissance/Early Modern thing). Rouitiers and other mercenaries in the Hundred Years War were often fairly middle class, and so on. Nobles in the War of the Roses and after retained large numbers of mercenaries, although often listed them as servants (one of the issues Henry VII had to deal with), which implies that the typical mercenary was a little more affordable than a noble background would usually imply. Mercenaries in Italy may have been a little more gentrified, since the condottieri such as the Ventura Company tended to be organised into knightly lances (knight, sergeant, servant) – with a much greater focus on cavalry than other mercenary forces at the time. Jabarto posted:I should have phrased that better. I meant were they like quilted and stuffed with batting, or made with many layers of fabric glued/stitched together, or something else? Yes. Mathematician's answer, but the most appropriate. Essentially either form of construction was possible. From what I understand, layered jacks were more common for heavier stand-alone armour. Woolie Wool posted:Why were medieval and early modern European cities such festering shitholes compared to basically every other place that had cities anywhere at any time, including Europe itself before 300 and after 1800? They certainly had the technology to clean their loving poo poo up if they wanted to, the Indus Valley civilization lived in 3000 loving BC and barely had metalworking, and they could at least not live surrounded by their own poo poo. What's Europe's excuse? Short answer: they weren’t. If anything, I see the low point of cleanliness in Europe to be… around about the same time they were heaping scorn on the medieval period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
I'm curious, how effective was padded armor in actual defense? I figure it probably wasn't great about arrows but you don't really hear about it Mich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Honestly I've mostly heard that because of the density of the interwoven material, it was actually quite good at protecting from arrows, but can be cut open by slashing attacks. Which makes sense since it was usually worn under metal armor. I'm sure someone with more experience can give a better explanation though. Or maybe refute me, I'm not positive about this! LazyMaybe fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:Honestly I've mostly heard that because of the density of the interwoven material, it was actually quite good at protecting from arrows, but can be cut open by slashing attacks. Which makes sense since it was usually worn under metal armor. The most I know about it is that it was what most levied troops would wear if they could afford it before metal armor got cheaper later on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:I'm curious, how effective was padded armor in actual defense? I figure it probably wasn't great about arrows but you don't really hear about it Mich. According to the Ordinances of Louis XI of France, it could be really good, “For never have I seen half-a-dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such jacks, particularly if they be men accustomed to fighting.” This is for a 30-layer jack as a stand-alone armour. There are some nice quotes here: http://www.historiclife.com/essays/jacks.htm There’s some decent, though not perfect, tests here: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131 From the link: “Conclusion: a jack, worn by itself, is easily defeated by thrusting weapons, even those seemingly not optimized for the thrust. Acutely pointed longsword gripped in the half-sword position make short work of even 30 layer jacks. The ease with which the Talhoffer, Regent and Brescia Spadona penetrated the 30 layer jack makes me believe they would have no problem with a thicker jack or one made from thicker layers. A jack, particularly one more than 10 layers thick is a very good defense against swords not optimized for the cut, but a cutting sword like a katana (and perhaps a falchion or messer) makes short work of them. The katana absolutely devastated the jack, and the Brescia Spadona, a civilian dueling longsword, was able to defeat a 20 layer jack. Very surprising indeed. Where the jack rally shines is against arrows. Even a 10 layer jack stopped my arrows cold, and I believe medieval bodkins wouldn’t fare any better. These tests have gone a long way towards convincing me that the jack was used primarily as a defense against arrows. When considering the effect of various swords on the jack, it is important to understand that the person wielding the sword has to be experienced. Some member of NYHFA with limited cutting experience also attempted to cut the jack, but they did not succeed. It’s not easy to penetrate a jack, not even with a good sword.” Other thoughts: Aztecs also used padded armour (though braided cotton hardened with salt-water), and it was described as “Neither arrow nor dart can pierce them, but are thrown back without making any wound, and even with swords it is difficult to penetrate through them.” Overall, the armour certainly gave protection against most of the weapons of the day. A proper sword blow could get through it, although most hits would really struggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
That's very fascinating. I wonder why you never really hear about this much compared to leather, which to my knowledge was not very popular in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:That's very fascinating. I wonder why you never really hear about this much compared to leather, which to my knowledge was not very popular in Europe. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
The test with the bow in the link is quite flawed. The OP forgets the difference of momentum of a light vs. heavy projectile with the same KE. The light and fast ones don't penetrate as deep and fare worse against padding (depending on the head). Furthermore, there's a large number of dedicated arrowheards for the task, that don't show up in the test. There's also a difference if the target that is shot is fixed or able to spring back. Etc. It's nice to see that somebody puts so much effort into trying things, but this doesn't tell much, beside that shooting padding with a compound bow and target tips doesn't do much. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
So, messers. I've been leafing through German fencing manuals and a fair bunch feature the humble messer. I've sort of considered it a "peasant weapon" thus far, but considering who these manuscripts were written for, I guess it, uh, wasn't. At least purely. Was the long knife just a regional fad, or is there some cool story why the Germans used it instead of the more widespread "arming sword" design?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:That's very fascinating. I wonder why you never really hear about this much compared to leather, which to my knowledge was not very popular in Europe. Hogge Wild probably has it right. Roleplaying games are a major factor. Adding onto that idea, game systems tend to classify armour by type or material, without accounting for the difference between say a 10 layer jack and a 30 layer jack. For instance, in early D&D the hierarchy goes Leather, Studded Leather (= leather with metal bits), Scale (leather with big metal bits), mail (small metal bits), plate. Other gaming systems tend to do the same thing. Most people would not really think of cloth as on that list. Siivola posted:So, messers. I've been leafing through German fencing manuals and a fair bunch feature the humble messer. I've sort of considered it a "peasant weapon" thus far, but considering who these manuscripts were written for, I guess it, uh, wasn't. At least purely. Was the long knife just a regional fad, or is there some cool story why the Germans used it instead of the more widespread "arming sword" design? Messers were definitely used by people of lots of classes. I do not remember which fighting manuscript said it but it listed the messer among the weapons that the knight needed to learn. At this point I should probably add that messer techniques would work well with an arming sword, so I doubt there is really much difference, and the sword-and-buckler treatise I.33 is also from Germany. Based on this - http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/swordbucklermesserdvd.aspx - arming swords were still a feature of German martial arts though. Beyond that, I do not know. No great story stands out to me. I always thought of the messer as more a substitute for the falchion than for the arming sword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Cloth is for wizards. Btw, I've started to open my bow It seems that it's very strong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Siivola posted:So, messers. I've been leafing through German fencing manuals and a fair bunch feature the humble messer. I've sort of considered it a "peasant weapon" thus far, but considering who these manuscripts were written for, I guess it, uh, wasn't. At least purely. Was the long knife just a regional fad, or is there some cool story why the Germans used it instead of the more widespread "arming sword" design? IIRC, it's because it was legal. HRE law prevened commoners from wearing swords outside of war, so some smartass came up with the messer. It's constructed like a knife, so it was legal to carry even though it was functionally a sword. Presumably the laws applied to well-off commoners (noveau-riche merchants and the like), so the manuals might have been for that market (I'm no expert though so don't quote me on that). Knights and the like would probably have wanted to be familiar with it just because it was such a common weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
So what were European cities really like in that case? Did many of them have closed sewers? (I did include "early modern" since IIRC the 1400s to the dawn of the 19th century were the most disgusting period of all)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:So what were European cities really like in that case? Did many of them have closed sewers? Closed sewers were not that common, although instead of germ theory they had miasma theory, which essentially mistook the correlation between stench and disease for causation. They believed the polluted air was what caused sickness, so they tried to combat that at least. Ideally a toilet would empty directly into running water, either by or alongside rivers. This kind of worked, although occasionally led to problems, such as with the Walbrook in London during the early 1300s. They eventually dealt with that problem by the residents could not throw other trash into the stream, and the people had to pay an annual fee towards keeping the Walbrook clean. The image of people dumping sewage out of their house into the street could happen, but could result in a fine and would probably be not too difficult to prosecute (whose door has the steaming pile of crap in front of it?). More acceptable and legal was to use cesspits and cesspools. These would also indirectly use the ground water to absorb and carry away at least some of it. Gong farmers would dig out the sewage from filled pits, though I do not know too much about what was done with it. Dorsey Armstrong also highlights a major problem with throwing garbage out the window; in medieval cities there tended to be overhangs (upper floors were often bigger than lower floors) and the overhangs of one house could be so close to another that it was a major cause of the danger of fires spreading. Urine was often collected for processing wool. I don’t know how it works. As for things getting really bad in the late 1400s and on, you’re right there. When you get into the late 1500s, there are rules passed in England about the problem of people “fouling” staircases/corridors/closets, and in France about the fouling of public gardens. In my mind, the big difference is due to population. Medieval cities did not grow as big as those in later periods, so it was a little easier to manage. Public or communal toilets were more common in the medieval period, being ironically one of the few things that were centralised, and I guess it made things at least mildly easier. A possible starting point for research would be here: http://dolly.jorgensenweb.net/medievalsanitation.html There is one quote from that which I think highlights the issue nicely, and why I judge later periods so harshly in their treatment of medieval history. “The constructed dichotomy of medieval filth versus modern cleanliness obscures our contemporary waste problems and reinforces a physical and mental distance from our own waste.” I hope that helps. Sorry if I was a little bit snappish in my earlier reply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
You need urine collected for tanning leather. You could only open or run a tanning business in certain parts of the city for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You need urine collected for tanning leather. You could only open or run a tanning business in certain parts of the city for obvious reasons. Dog poo poo is also useful for softening (bating) the leather.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
One should always think of that when reading "Stadtluft macht frei".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
A lot of films and other media portray medieval and ancient combat rather, unrealistically. What are some particular offenders? Who gets it right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Kanine posted:A lot of films and other media portray medieval and ancient combat rather, unrealistically. Game of Thrones has some really lovely swordfighting. But some good too. The first season has two fights that come to mind: that Bronn dude up in that whatever tower against an armored knight is bad, but the fight between Jorbo Marmite or whatever is his name and that horsefolk dude is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
It's only good because it's the first time that armour has ever been shown to be useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Jorbo Marmite is a really good game of thrones name well done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Kanine posted:A lot of films and other media portray medieval and ancient combat rather, unrealistically. The ending duel in Rob Roy is held up as a very realistic one, with limited dramatic flourishes. The Duelists also does a decent job of not adding in tons of movie stuff, though its not entirely accurate, like the details are all wrong but the actual presentation is very well done and not unrealistic. The Arthur vs Lancelot duel in Excalibur also does much better job on depicting armored fighting then most movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Kanine posted:A lot of films and other media portray medieval and ancient combat rather, unrealistically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
It's been linked in this thread before, and it has a few problems-but I really really like this one from Polanski's Macbeth as a fight between men in armor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
A lot of the coroner rolls produced by this twitter account report people being murdered by clerks. What the hell was up with medieval clerks that they were murdering people so often?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:A lot of the coroner rolls produced by this twitter account report people being murdered by clerks. What the hell was up with medieval clerks that they were murdering people so often? To be fair I think its drawing the responses from a big pool and handing them out randomly, otherwise lots of people got stabbed by a highway man with a dagger worth 2d and this Hugo guy got around. Though I did see two different murdered by clerks messages. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
I'm not talking about the randomly generated causes of death for people replying to the bot, I mean stuff like "Philip Port, died 1305, murdered and mutilated by five clerks after a night of drinking"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:A lot of the coroner rolls produced by this twitter account report people being murdered by clerks. What the hell was up with medieval clerks that they were murdering people so often? Clerk means cleric. It was used of anyone who was technically of the Church, without having a high enough rank to warrant the use of his actual title, so essentially anyone with a minor ordination, such as exorcist or lector. It usually means either a parish clerk, who was a sort of literate dogsbody to the parish priest, or a student. I suspect it was the latter who were killing people. Student riots in England tended to be pretty brutal. For a medieval account of dickhead clerks causing mayhem, look at the Reeve's Tale, where a pair Geordie clerks go all Funny Games on a crooked miller and his family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
At least here student violence was endemic until 1867 I think, reason being that until then students were under the jurisdiction of the university, not local magistrates. It seems that the university gave next to zero fucks if a bunch of drunken students rioted and beat up people. Also, students had the right to bear arms since 1514 via edict of Maximillian I. Lots of wild duels fought as you can imagine, this evovles into more regulated forms and finally into Mensur. Pride of rank involved, arms, lots of booze, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Alatriste gets a bunch of details wrong but what it gets right is that early modern combat didn't involve the big messy globs of dudes that you see in lots of historical movies. Seconding this. 'Alatriste' is to Renaissance fighting what 'Saving Private Ryan' is to WW2 war-torn hellscape realism. I rate it an order of magnitude better than anything else mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:47
|
|
