|
Any archaeologists or historical metallurgists here who know about the spread of Wootz in Europe before Industrial era? I know Russians came to mass produce the stuff as "bulat" and that spread across Europe, but before that, how easy was it to acquire? It was produced in India, which was one major source, Central Asia, I think Persia too, and the rest of Middle East (was that where the moniker "Damascus steel" came from?) but in Europe (Central, Western, Southern) how easy would it be for some smithy to get a hold of an ingot of proper wootz?
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Siivola posted:I'm assuming you're looking for historical fencing lessons. This site should be a fairly comprehensive list of active HEMA (historical European martial arts) clubs by area, which should help you get started. Thanks! That website was helpful! Unfortunately, the only place that offers instruction near me seems...off. Seems like it's more reenacting than legit combat training. Also, I just started the fencing thread! So much info!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Was knife throwing ever actually a thing? I know that hatchets can gently caress someone up if you chuck them at someone, Africans had those things that were like five knives taped together that they could throw, and ninja would throw whatever was sharp at you as a distraction. Were there ever knives made for throwing in combat that were capable of killing dudes without armor, or is that a movie/video game thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:Was knife throwing ever actually a thing? I know that hatchets can gently caress someone up if you chuck them at someone, Africans had those things that were like five knives taped together that they could throw, and ninja would throw whatever was sharp at you as a distraction. I'm mostly conjecturing here, but the most prevalent and effective thrown weapons, historically speaking, were spears and javelins. All others, like throwing axes, those Roman weighted darts, and especially throwing knives, were very rare and weren't commonly employed in war. I infer from this that they were probably less effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:I'm mostly conjecturing here, but the most prevalent and effective thrown weapons, historically speaking, were spears and javelins. All others, like throwing axes, those Roman weighted darts, and especially throwing knives, were very rare and weren't commonly employed in war. I infer from this that they were probably less effective. There's some contradictory points about the Franks using throwing axes right before getting into hand-to-hand combat. Throwing knives really don't make sense because you've got to use them exactly, hit an unarmored bit, and they require quite a bit of skill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Here's something I've been wondering about for a few years. In the movie Excalibur, Patrick Stewart's character has this...thing on the left side of his breastplate.  If I remember right, it's only attached at the top, and it swings around a bit when he moves. So, what's it called and what's it's purpose? I'm assuming it's not for emergency battleground orange juice making.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
I can't remember the name but it's to protect the armpit, which is a very vulnerable area as it's generally only covered in maille and there is major blood vessels in there. It's only on the one side as it interferes with the couching of the lance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
10 Beers posted:Here's something I've been wondering about for a few years. In the movie Excalibur, Patrick Stewart's character has this...thing on the left side of his breastplate. Can't remember what it's called but I seem to recall it's there to cover the armpit, and stop thrusts aimed there (where you would often just have padding or chain instead of plate protection).\ e: What Rabhadh said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
It's called a Besagew, although I think that type of round plate is more generally called a Rondel. It's not uncommon for armor to only have one, although I think that is when you have shield on the other side to cover that area, which makes it a little odd that's is on his left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:It's called a Besagew, although I think that type of round plate is more generally called a Rondel. It's not uncommon for armor to only have one, although I think that is when you have shield on the other side to cover that area, which makes it a little odd that's is on his left. is he left handed? the metal piece jutting out over his shoulder would also be to compensate for the lack of shield in that hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There's some contradictory points about the Franks using throwing axes right before getting into hand-to-hand combat. Yeah, but that's only one example of throwing axes being used, and that's in the same context as the Roman pila, to throw the opposing formation into disarray before you charge in. But overwhelmingly, throwing spears and javelins were preferred for the same role, essentially globally, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:Yeah, but that's only one example of throwing axes being used, and that's in the same context as the Roman pila, to throw the opposing formation into disarray before you charge in. But overwhelmingly, throwing spears and javelins were preferred for the same role, essentially globally, I think. Which makes sense, given that you need a lot less metal for a spear, javelin, dart, or what have you, and it's a modification of the most common hand-to-hand weapons as well. That brings up the question of why the Franks used axes instead, assuming the reports are accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Which makes sense, given that you need a lot less metal for a spear, javelin, dart, or what have you, and it's a modification of the most common hand-to-hand weapons as well. That brings up the question of why the Franks used axes instead, assuming the reports are accurate. Perhaps it was simply the ease of carrying them? I'd imagine you could just carry a throwing axe in a sling, your belt, or a pouch, while a javelin is something you'd probably have to carry around in your hand all day long. I suppose that would just be very convenient, especially if you're involved more in smaller-scale raiding and skirmishing as opposed to larger-scale field battles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Perhaps it was simply the ease of carrying them? I'd imagine you could just carry a throwing axe in a sling, your belt, or a pouch, while a javelin is something you'd probably have to carry around in your hand all day long. I suppose that would just be very convenient, especially if you're involved more in smaller-scale raiding and skirmishing as opposed to larger-scale field battles. Yeah, I guess I mean, why there, and not in other places with similar culture, military, etc? Probably an impossible question to answer, maybe just contingency, maybe the writers who claimed they used axes like that were wrong and the Franks used axes the way most did, by using them to hack down on shields and pull them away and that got misinterpreted as throwing them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Or maybe they had a shitton of axes and figured out a use for the extras. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I'm on my phone but there is one plate in talhoffer's 1459 fechtbuch that shows someone with a thrown dagger sticking out of their chest, so at the very least it was a known tactic. Given that it only exists in one plate though I expect it was rather rare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Quick question, since we don't really have a general medieval thread. Does anyone have a good suggestion on a book on medieval Germany (or at least the medieval German-speaking world - HRE and the like)? Nothing too focused or specific, the kind of book that you'd throw a undergrad or junior grad student doing coursework. A good synthetic work that actually makes some interesting general points. Readable would be nice, but that isn't a hard requirement. I'm also really open to a series of 2-3 books if they're good - I suspect that's going to be necessary anyway. I've got a vacation coming up and need some beach reading and I've been trying to fill in some of the blind spots in my knowledge of German history (i.e. basically everything before the 16th century).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 15:56
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Quick question, since we don't really have a general medieval thread. Any specific time period or concepts? I think quite fondly of the work of Karl Leyser in general, such as Communications and Power in Medieval Europe, Medieval Germany and its Neighbours and Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society. The two widest ranging monographs I can think of are Arnold, Medieval Germany and Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages and then reference texts like the New Cambridge History. For a more old school take there's also Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, though you must keep in mind that both Leyser and Barraclough fought against Germany, and Barraclough in particular was driven slightly mad by that experience. If you want to get involved in the Ottonians, Salians, Investiture Controversy, Staufens or the Golden Bull there are plenty of good monographs about that, such as the work of IS Robinson or Brian Tierney for the Papal dimension, and there are also at least 3-4 good biographies of Frederick II, including the Kantorowicz one which is regarded as a classic. Books I can recall liking about medieval Germany in general: Kieckhefer, The repression of heresy in medieval Germany Christiansen, The Northern Crusades Anything about the interaction of Italy and Germany is incredibly interesting, like Waley's The Italian City-republcs. If you have a taste for sources, the most famous are going to be: Thietmar of Merseberg Widukind of Corvey Adam of Bremen Otto of Freising The Liber Augustalis And the Golden Bull of 1356 Brian Tierney also reprints a large number of papal sources re: papal controversies with Germany & France Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Which makes sense, given that you need a lot less metal for a spear, javelin, dart, or what have you, and it's a modification of the most common hand-to-hand weapons as well. That brings up the question of why the Franks used axes instead, assuming the reports are accurate. There is an interesting commentary here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCbL_y3zTM It is speculative, but a possible idea. Some of it is tried out here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0GsU5X_FY I love the bounce. It does not seem particularly lethal, but I could see it creating weaknesses in the shield wall if thrown in large numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Any specific time period or concepts? Thanks a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Railtus posted:There is an interesting commentary here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCbL_y3zTM That's really cool, and makes a lot of sense as something you'd do right before you closed. If they're thrown en masse, the dodging becomes a lot harder, too. it's interesting to me when there's a good tactic or a good weapon, like the falx and Rhomphaia, which doesn't really spread. I think it may be because of the tactical doctrine you'd need to have along with it. (I know the Romans adopted the falx for certain circumstances, but not in the same way the Thracians used it.) To talk about another reputed tribal weapon that wasn't widespread, does anyone know if there's truth to the Gaelic 'brain ball' thing, where they used quicklime mixed together with brains and threw it in battle? I can find barely any references too it and it seems like such a good myth-fit I doubt it's real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 22:35
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Thanks a bunch. Let me know how you find it, it's been a while since I read those.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
So here's a question - it's a common trope in fiction that the aristocracy (no matter the time period or setting) are arrogant sods who believe that they are superior human beings - that because of their noble bloodlines and superior breeding, they don't simply have the right to lead, they are the best possible leaders anyways. Blood will out and all that. But how common was this point of view during the Medieval period, particularly the early period? Did nobles actually believe themselves to be better at what they did because of their birth? Did they instead view nobility as a hierarchy instead, locked in by blood and tradition but with no real connection to competence? Did they not really worry about nobility at all except as a mark of personal privilege to be protected? Or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Did nobles actually believe themselves to be better at what they did because of their birth? Well, they were better because of their birth. They ate better, had a more varied diet, often had at least some level of formal education, had martial training, traveled further and more often... it's pretty easy to reinforce a superior world view when your world directly reflects that view. Many smart people still fall for this kind of thinking today. No wonder that many nobles were so upset when merchant families started bridging the gap and it became clear that at least some commoners weren't all that different after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So here's a question - it's a common trope in fiction that the aristocracy (no matter the time period or setting) are arrogant sods who believe that they are superior human beings - that because of their noble bloodlines and superior breeding, they don't simply have the right to lead, they are the best possible leaders anyways. Blood will out and all that. But how common was this point of view during the Medieval period, particularly the early period? Did nobles actually believe themselves to be better at what they did because of their birth? Did they instead view nobility as a hierarchy instead, locked in by blood and tradition but with no real connection to competence? Did they not really worry about nobility at all except as a mark of personal privilege to be protected? Or something else? The whole blood thing is a spanish invention of the 1500s afaik.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:54
|
|
Tomn posted:So here's a question - it's a common trope in fiction that the aristocracy (no matter the time period or setting) are arrogant sods who believe that they are superior human beings - that because of their noble bloodlines and superior breeding, they don't simply have the right to lead, they are the best possible leaders anyways. Blood will out and all that. But how common was this point of view during the Medieval period, particularly the early period? Did nobles actually believe themselves to be better at what they did because of their birth? Did they instead view nobility as a hierarchy instead, locked in by blood and tradition but with no real connection to competence? Did they not really worry about nobility at all except as a mark of personal privilege to be protected? Or something else? Well you're not taking in to account a lot of stuff. Firstly, what do you mean by aristocracy. On any account, for example, bishops and abbots of major monasteries count, not only because they were usually from rich families - but many of these people, particularly Abbots, were elected, as was the Pope. So they are backed by a kind of corporate authority. Likewise in Italian communes and Venice, even though there is still an aristocratic family interaction with office-holding. Moreover, religion here is very important. Christianity is very effective as a buttress to the existing power structure - rend unto caesar etc. Medieval theology strongly implied that earthly authorities, like it or not, were placed in their position by divine providence. Thirdly, you're forgetting that aristocracy is about property. People seriously forget, as I keep repeating, that 'feudalism' - a word we don't like to really use - is to a large degree, in the former Carolingian areas, a conversion of offices that were once appointed under Charlemagne in to hereditary offices. Being count of Toulouse is not just something you are, it's something you own, and you have an entitlement to pass your property on to your children (and, in fact, in Roman law you also inherit the legal personage of your antecedent). Fourthly, we're also talking about a form of relations that is to some extent contractual. If you're living in a chaotic time without strong central authority, and you're a peasant farmer, you're liable to be stolen from, hurt or hosed over, or lack an external authority to arbitrate your disputes. In that situation making a compact with a castellan of a share of what you farm for security and judicial arbitration may be a good deal. That very basic pattern has happened even outside of European paradigms - notably in Japan, where itinerant warriors providing security to farmers led to a Samurai class emerging by attaching itself to the land and in to the chain of relations to the emperor.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well you're not taking in to account a lot of stuff. Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear, since what I'm trying to grope at is a bit hazy, admittedly. I'm not asking for judgment or condemnation of the nobility, but for how the nobility viewed themselves (and to a lesser extent, how others at the time viewed nobles, but I understand those kinds of records tend to be pretty sparse since it was largely the nobility leaving records). Did they think of themselves as being inherently better than their social inferiors, as later fiction would portray them thinking? Did they view themselves as merely being fortunate? Did they just consider their position in nobility as simply being their lot in life, admittedly a much cushier lot than that of many? Was nobility simply an inherited thing, like a house or a favored book, that didn't confer any particular moral merit on the holder of the title? For the record, I'm asking this with the sneaking suspicion that the whole "good breeding creates inherently better people" idea probably arose much later as a pushback against Enlightenment ideas, and that medieval and especially early lords probably didn't actually bother that much with ideas of natural superiority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear, since what I'm trying to grope at is a bit hazy, admittedly. I'm not asking for judgment or condemnation of the nobility, but for how the nobility viewed themselves (and to a lesser extent, how others at the time viewed nobles, but I understand those kinds of records tend to be pretty sparse since it was largely the nobility leaving records). Did they think of themselves as being inherently better than their social inferiors, as later fiction would portray them thinking? Did they view themselves as merely being fortunate? Did they just consider their position in nobility as simply being their lot in life, admittedly a much cushier lot than that of many? Was nobility simply an inherited thing, like a house or a favored book, that didn't confer any particular moral merit on the holder of the title? It depends. I remember some documentaries on Agincourt (unfortunately I cannot remember the title) that claimed the French aristocracy were outraged and shocked that they so many French were killed “by men of no value.” You could read a lot into that choice of words, although I do not know how reliable that is. One thing for the nobility was the three orders: the idea that the knight fought for all, the priest prayed for all, and the peasant worked for all. Dorsey Armstrong mentions stories from the period where the knight offers to help the peasant with his work, and the peasant refuses. I think Dorsey's evidence is good but how you interpret those kind of stories existing is another matter. But for me, this is what makes me think the “lot in life” interpretation seems most appropriate. The idea of genteel proficiency – the idea that being of high birth automatically meant you would be a better fighter, regardless of training – seems to be a later invention, and my best argument for that is to look at how hard the medieval knightly classes trained. For instance, some sources here - http://www.thearma.org/essays/fit/RennFit.htm#.VYIATEaVKYM – quite readily scold nobles for not training. Another discussion on how views of monarchy/aristocracy/justice changed over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMCBe9p35Sc I hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
No sides, obviously, but we should check the "by men of no value" bit considering it's a translation of almost 1,000 year-old French. My Middle French is pretty meh, but I am so tired of people not factoring in words changing over time when they do the Connotation Game. For reference, in English at this time 'silly' meant 'compassionate'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The whole blood thing is a spanish invention of the 1500s afaik. Are you referring to the concept of "blue blood" rather than just generic "noble blood"? Because I can recall a story about the white spaniards being able to see their blue veins through their pale skin and lording that over the darker muslims/moors. I think that's related, but different from the whole idea of nobility being seen as something you're born with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Being a noble was really handy in war because if everything went tits up you could usually surrender and be taken prisoner because you might bring in a decent ransom. If you were some random commoner or mercenary you'd probably get killed on the spot because prisoners you can't ransom are useless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:11
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:mercenary Also people really hated mercenaries.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also people really hated mercenaries. A lot of nobles were mercenaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Being a noble was really handy in war because if everything went tits up you could usually surrender and be taken prisoner because you might bring in a decent ransom. If you were some random commoner or mercenary you'd probably get killed on the spot because prisoners you can't ransom are useless. You can ransom commoners and mercenaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Are you referring to the concept of "blue blood" rather than just generic "noble blood"? Because I can recall a story about the white spaniards being able to see their blue veins through their pale skin and lording that over the darker muslims/moors. I think that's related, but different from the whole idea of nobility being seen as something you're born with. He's probably referring to limpieza de sangre, which did not really have anything to do with race - it reflected religious heritage and profession - in fifteenth and sixteenth century Spain. As to the question of nobility, there were descendants of Moorish nobles who claimed privileges and exemption from various prohibitions on the grounds that noble blood trumped their otherwise "impure" blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Concepts of race are enlightenment ideas, but this is sort of a proto-racist concept to sort out anyone who hasn't had christian ancestors. It was specifically aimed at converted jews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 07:06
|
|
Obdicut posted:A lot of nobles were mercenaries. I didn't say they weren't, but it wasn't lauded, and if you weren't an aristocrat, so much the worse, in part because mercenary companies were a vector for social mobility. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I didn't say they weren't, but it wasn't lauded, and if you weren't an aristocrat, so much the worse, in part because mercenary companies were a vector for social mobility. Well it's not like commoners were huge fans of mercenaries either, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:49
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Well it's not like commoners were huge fans of mercenaries either, for obvious reasons. Well, quite.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
are we still talking about the early middle ages hereTomn posted:how common was this point of view during the Medieval period, particularly the early period?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:53
|
|
