Kanine posted:In general how accurate is the TV show "Vikings?" well to start with, it's about a semi-mythical figure
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:Fair play, but if you're part of the Byzantines you can order your prisoners blinded or castrated. Doing the latter to a child makes the game call you out on being a particularly unpleasant individual. Huh, I thought eununching was a common practice there?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Huh, I thought eununching was a common practice there? Not during the time frame the game covers, I think, and in any event you're ordering the castration of a boy for political reasons. The main game reason to castrate or blind someone is to remove them from potential imperial succession, and castration has the additional benefit of removing their ability to have kids. Unless your ruler has the Cruel or Impaler traits, yeah you're having a kid turned into a eunuch so he won't be a threat to succession and can't have kids that might be a problem.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:haha jesus you're ornery about this. my main sources are (as i've been perfectly open about) the sagas and the way they portray scandinavian society of the time, supplemented by history books, admittedly mostly on the accessible end of the scale You haven't supported your thesis very well, I for one am not at all sure that 10th century Norwegians were any less settled than Irish, Scots or slavs in the same period, nor that 10th century Danes were especially fit. The Varangian Guard also included Anglo-Saxons you know.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Kanine posted:In general how accurate is the TV show "Vikings?" It's unlikely anyone had a permanent smirk back then unless there was some kind of neurological damage involved.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:haha jesus you're ornery about this. my main sources are (as i've been perfectly open about) the sagas and the way they portray scandinavian society of the time, supplemented by history books, admittedly mostly on the accessible end of the scale Okay, well, per the Irish Sagas etc. the generally warlike disposition of the Saxons (who were pretty actively pacifying England at the time and having happy fun wartimes) we can discard that as uniquely Scandinavian. We can chalk relative height/'haleness' to a. self selection (unhealthy people don't go on raids) b. genetics (loving Swedes are still tall to this day)* c. tramatized suprised rear end people remebering their terrorizers as terrifying, and d. speculation because I'd like to see archeological records proving this. They did fight well, particularly when they chose the field and their targets (the same, however, could be said for any group), but a lot of their reputation comes from rolling in a sacking monasteries and undefended, unprepared villages. Many other 'warrior' societies successfully fought off even native born and bred Scandinavian truebloods when they had a chance to form up and actually throw down. The Varangians are an interesting case in that they were mostly useful, not because they were better soldiers than the Empire had at the time, but because they were an independent body loyal only to the Emperor, and again, there's a pretty specific selection for hard rear end gently caress you up types. A lot of emperors have done similar things, from the Praetorians (really no different than any other Italians...) to your basic Mamluk or Janissary (slaves of whatever type available, nothing to do with lifestyle or diet.) And I'm not disputing that the vikings went and messed people up, I'm disputing that this was unique to them. The Saxons had just rolled into England, was that because life in Germany made them warlike? The Franks beat up each other and the Moors and then got raided by the vikings,** so is there like a hierarchy of warriorness, only, wait the Moors beat the Iberians, but the Goths beat the Romans who beat the Gauls... poo poo. So I guess I'm disputing you on two points: The vikings were successsful at war. They did well, conquered people and beat them up. However, other peoples conquered them and beat them up. It happens. The vikings were uniquely suited to war because they (uniquely, and your first posts did say this): Feuded and skirmished, nope, not unique. Ate better and worked out more, pretty pure speculation based on ''i see no other simple explanation" Soooooooo... unless I'm mistaken, that's the position you've taken and my thoughts relative to it. *re height: an East Asian equivalent of the viking raids were the wakou, lit. 'midget pirates.' Well, the 'wa' bit was kinda supposed to refer to Japan, but it also denotes, well, shortness. **again, until they smacked the Vikings on the nose, then had them swear fealty and chill out and learn French just in time to give it to the Saxons.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
The historical Ibn Fadlan did describe the Scandinavians he encountered as being very tall. Also, disgusting. http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ibn_fdln.shtml#Risala
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
i am still inexplicably angry that the dutch are so goddamned large i will fight u irl, the dutch
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Mountain men of the Dinaric Alps (evenly split between pretty much all nationalities those mountains cover) are taller. Guess where my family is from.  e: But I'm not tall. Only 6'1'' 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
my dad posted:e: But I'm not tall. Only 6'1'' this time
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
So rather than go back and forth about whether Vikings were swole, or *totally* swole, I'll mention that Chris Wickam's The Inheritance of Rome does a great job of putting the whole 'Dark Ages Europe/Middle East' into context, including how the Vikings figured out how to get mad loot by switching their hats from adventurer merchants to berserker raiders when the opportunity warranted it. The book is pretty much 'here's why the new earlier start dates in CK2 are the best'.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
I think we're missing the larger point: There should be axes that have beards.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
I dont think the Vikings were particularly more vicious, bigger overall, or even better fighters than anyone else. I do think their tradition of raiding and near constant warfare led to having, on average, more experienced fighters than other contemporary cultures and in a smash and grab raid like they were fond of, that's going to give you quite an edge and lead to a fearsome reputation among your victims. You'll notice that in actual pitched battle they didn't necessarily do any better than anyone else, in fact they lost quite a lot. I guess maybe you could argue their religion made them more willing to fight and die in battle because of Valhalla and whatnot, but I think those arguments would be circumstantial at best.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
I recall that the main thing about the Vikings is that the were basically pirates. They avoided pitched battles with prepared opponents. Instead, their shallow-draft longboats would allow them to slip up rivers where they could pounce on an undefended hamlet, loot it and burn it, and then get away before arms could be raised against them. People feared the Vikings not because they were exceptional warriors, but because they preyed on the weak. Whenever they actually invaded a place, they quickly settled down and learned to get along.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
quote:It would be premature to attempt to identify an era that was the worst in the last millennium for European health and nutrition, but the 17th century is a leading candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Having a war for a third of the century that was the one time the Europeans really buckled down to the task of equaling a good pandemic by way of war is a start for messing up nutrition.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Hey Gal, what did your guys eat? Mostly bread, I'd guess. Were they issued rations? Given money to buy them? Or have to scrounge (steal) for themselves? Did they go through serious food shortages?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
I think a lot of us are leaving unasked a very important question: would the Vikings have used tank destroyers?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Hey Gal, what did your guys eat? Mostly bread, I'd guess. Were they issued rations? Given money to buy them? Or have to scrounge (steal) for themselves? Did they go through serious food shortages? Most of what I study is the 1620s; as the century progressed, a larger proportion of the wages was given in kind (food or fabric). One of the benefits of this is that according to officers, the common soldier can't be trusted not to blow a month or two weeks' worth of pay in a few days. That's all theoretical. In practice, they have to scrounge (steal) for themselves and food shortages are terribly common. Supply convoys get to their recipients intermittently (yes, convoys: the surrounding territory is always presumed hostile so all important military transport is done heavily armed), the high officers are always in debt, the soldiers are rarely payed, the captains and colonels are probably trying to swindle the soldiers at all times, and even if everything worked perfectly these people are still terrible at logistics. Even legally procured food almost always comes from the surrounding area, which is why armies move around so much in this period. They have to make sure they don't exhaust the place where they're staying. A siege is also hard on the besiegers because they have to be immobile: the Battle of the Alte Veste was preceded by Gustavus Adolphus and Wallenstein staring at each other, each trying to starve the other out (GA was in Nuremburg, Wallenstein was in a fortified camp across his supply lines, or what passes for a supply line in this century; GA blinked first, assaulted Wallenstein's position, and lost). HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:16 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm a big fan of Matt Easton's videos. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:yuuuup I thought it would be easy to identify the worst era for health in Europe. The Black Death killed 50% of the population in five years, and no other pandemic in Europe came anywhere close to being that devastating.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I thought it would be easy to identify the worst era for health in Europe. The Black Death killed 50% of the population in five years, and no other pandemic in Europe came anywhere close to being that devastating. Well, you personally probably won't get cholera.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
What proportion of deaths from that sort of war was from civilians starving? Because the less acute forms of that lead to short people in a way getting but not dying of plague won't do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
I just have to say that I really love the erratic transliteration of Irish words on those wikipedia articles. Took me a while to cop what a "skeene" was 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:many of the irl milhistorians i know are women, and i have never gotten poo poo in person from professionals or hobbyists A lot of my former street fighter friends are now racking in medals in full contact knight combat here in Denmark, so there's definitely an overlap 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Kanine posted:In general how accurate is the TV show "Vikings?" It's entertaining and, with notable exception, entertaining almost never means historically accurate. Also the reason they don't show people with helmets in movies/tv shows is because it's harder to tell characters apart with them on, not because they don't give a poo poo about historical accuracy (they don't).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Tias posted:A lot of my former street fighter friends are now racking in medals in full contact knight combat here in Denmark, so there's definitely an overlap only remaining question is why anyone would want to shoot muskets xthetenth posted:What proportion of deaths from that sort of war was from civilians starving? Because the less acute forms of that lead to short people in a way getting but not dying of plague won't do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i am still inexplicably angry that the dutch are so goddamned large Come at me bro IIRC high(er) height has been a bit of a problem with regards to military equipment the last couple of decades since older stuff has been designed for a μ ± 2σ population long gone. Hell, door frames are supposed to be 240cms now but nooo I really needed to live in a 19th c tiny-rear end house where I bump my head even though I'm only 6'0.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
What's the name of the czarist treaties the bolsheviks uncovered, that were published by the Manchester Guardian? Maybe my Google Fu is weakening.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
^^^ The most embarrassing one was probably the Sykes-Picot agreement, in which Britain, France and Russia carved up what they expected to be the former Ottoman Empire for themselves; but there were quite a few others. 100 Years Ago Italy declares war. (Our Advertising Feature comes over all Italian in sympathy.) Despite Salandra's bullshit, General Cadorna has 400,000 men ready to invade. So of course he picks this time to comprehensively piss away any sympathy you might have been building up for him over the last month or so as he's been buggered about by the civilians. A prototype Fokker monoplane flies with a synchronising gear, the Germans prepare for one more heave at Second Ypres, Lieutenant Bortger gets his comeuppance after yesterday's diet of beef and atrocity, and Second Lieutenant George Bemand makes his claim to being the first black officer in the British Army, aided and abetted by some tactical lying on his application. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 10:21 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 10:13
|
|
Squalid posted:You haven't supported your thesis very well, I for one am not at all sure that 10th century Norwegians were any less settled than Irish, Scots or slavs in the same period, nor that 10th century Danes were especially fit. The Varangian Guard also included Anglo-Saxons you know. It should be said that the Varangian guard started including more Saxons after the Vikings had finished peak Viking.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:^^^ The most embarrassing one was probably the Sykes-Picot agreement, in which Britain, France and Russia carved up what they expected to be the former Ottoman Empire for themselves; but there were quite a few others. That might be the one, I just heard about the leaks in the latest "Blueprint to Armageddon" episode, and forgot to write it down.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:That might be the one, I just heard about the leaks in the latest "Blueprint to Armageddon" episode, and forgot to write it down. They published the Treaty of London, too, and that was very embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:^^^ The most embarrassing one was probably the Sykes-Picot agreement, in which Britain, France and Russia carved up what they expected to be the former Ottoman Empire for themselves; but there were quite a few others. What did the Italians use as a pretext for the war? If I have my international ddiplomacy right, custom is that you list a number of grievances as casus belli in your declaration of war (Germany to France was the false report of French airships bombing a German town).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I think a lot of us are leaving unasked a very important question: would the Vikings have used tank destroyers? Only if the gun barrels were bearded.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Vikings are all about the infantry, so they would have recognized the value of the StuG.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:What did the Italians use as a pretext for the war? If I have my international ddiplomacy right, custom is that you list a number of grievances as casus belli in your declaration of war (Germany to France was the false report of French airships bombing a German town). If I recall correctly, nationalism. "The Austrians still hold and oppress within their territories Italian-speaking peoples who should rightfully be taken under the wing of the glorious Italian nation" etc. etc. I don't think there was any specific trigger incident, just ongoing nationalism that happened to see what looked like an opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I heard that was mostly due to armors on museum display are often not set up in a manner that would be more appropriate for how they would be worn, making them a bit more stocky. Also I'm told that a lot of preserved armour is for children, or young teens. I.e. Ceremonial for Nobles sons. Adult sized armour tended to get used until it was lost or destroyed. So a disproportionate amount of surviving period armour is small to the modern eye.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Also I'm told that a lot of preserved armour is for children, or young teens. I.e. Ceremonial for Nobles sons. Adult sized armour tended to get used until it was lost or destroyed. So a disproportionate amount of surviving period armour is small to the modern eye. Kind of like how lots of vintage clothing is in really weird sizes. (I want to see a suit of armor made for an incredibly fat man)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:Kind of like how lots of vintage clothing is in really weird sizes. Like this dude? 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:07
|
|