|
HEY GAL posted:these guys are dutch tho, from near friesland I just noticed the clogs. Amazing.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I just noticed the clogs. Amazing. there's a bunch of inaccuracies in that photo, though
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:reenactors love those, since they're cheaper than leather shoes. It should be a painting, also there's a dude with jeans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It should be a painting, also there's a dude with jeans. Not enough significant gesturing and showing off banging calves either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:reenactors love those, since they're cheaper than leather shoes. Yeah, that was/is kind of the whole point of wearing them. Cheap as gently caress to make, waterproof, warm, they last forever, quite comfortable to wear if you get used to them and also safe when working with machinery etc (whole wooden clogs are actually CE certified as safety shoes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
they look loving ridiculous tho, i'd rather wear those low little open-sided ballet-flat things, even though there's no ankle support and mud sucks them off my feet edit: and some massive armored german stood on my left foot this weekend, which hurt more than when the horse stepped on me HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3qTniJsoEg Modern rubber soles are a thing of wonder and beautiful materials engineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
This has probably been asked before, but are there any detailed cases of soldiers in mail armor fighting opponents in full plate harness? If there were, how did they overcome the difference in protection? I get the impression that mail is more maneuverable than plate, but historical examples would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:This has probably been asked before, but are there any detailed cases of soldiers in mail armor fighting opponents in full plate harness? If there were, how did they overcome the difference in protection? I get the impression that mail is more maneuverable than plate, but historical examples would be nice. Real life is rarely built around rock paper scissors, and the limiting factor on ring/scale/plate etc. is usually economic or technological, not a matter of choice. Well made plate is, apparently, pretty mobile and maneuverable (if heavy), and in some cases less restrictive than other types. Overall, it'd be 'overcome' in the same way a man in plate would overcome a man in plate: attacking the joints in the armor or the visor. As for historical examples, the relatively lightly armored English longbowmen rushed the heavily armored French men-at-arms at Agincourt. Obviously it's an exceptional case, with a lot of factors (men-at-arms bogged in mud, had just been run over by their own cavalry, possible crowd crush problems, mass psychology, etc. etc.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:This has probably been asked before, but are there any detailed cases of soldiers in mail armor fighting opponents in full plate harness? If there were, how did they overcome the difference in protection? Why yes, in a thread on Something Awful. I am so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:This has probably been asked before, but are there any detailed cases of soldiers in mail armor fighting opponents in full plate harness? If there were, how did they overcome the difference in protection? I get the impression that mail is more maneuverable than plate, but historical examples would be nice. I can point you toward some cases in 15th/16th century Ireland where a handful of English and wealthy Irish nobles and their retinues would be wearing plate fighting predominantly mail clad native forces but it doesn't seem to have made a difference, or at least it wasn't worth mentioning. In Ireland mobility usually always came out on top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Real life is rarely built around rock paper scissors, and the limiting factor on ring/scale/plate etc. is usually economic or technological, not a matter of choice. Well made plate is, apparently, pretty mobile and maneuverable (if heavy), and in some cases less restrictive than other types. Completely correct, full plate doesn't reduce your maneuverability much at all. Also correctly fitted plate would be less taxing to wear for long durations. You have to keep in mind that with a mail tunic the majority of the weight is resting on your shoulders which can tire you out. Because plate is rigid you can transfer a lot of the load to your hips with cinches and harnesses. A suit of plate would weigh about 70 lbs which is about the same as a modern soldier's battle kit and I know a US soldier is expected to be able to scale a 6 foot high in full kit. Ordering a suit of custom plate armor was massively expensive and gave a huge advantage on the field. A man in mail would not be able to stand against a man in plate one-on-one. The most effective strategy would be to outnumber better armored opponent, force him into a grapple, take him to the ground, then pin him and put a dagger through his visor. This was why weapons like these were invented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Alzion posted:Ordering a suit of custom plate armor was massively expensive and gave a huge advantage on the field. A man in mail would not be able to stand against a man in plate one-on-one. The most effective strategy would be to outnumber better armored opponent, force him into a grapple, take him to the ground, then pin him and put a dagger through his visor. This was why weapons like these were invented. I thought I heard (probably in this thread) that, for much of the Medieval period, the cost of chainmail would be more than a suit of plate, because assembling all of the interlocking rings was so labor-intensive, and the Black Death drove wages way up for centuries due to lack of labor supply. Material costs were apparently a lesser fraction. Edit: Yeah it was. This page is pretty good, especially this article: quote:Other factors that need to be considered include technological innovations in mass production, namely the water-powered trip hammer and the blast furnace. These technologies enabled iron plate to be manufactured in much larger quantities and much more cheaply than previously. In addition, labour costs dramatically increased after the Black Death (14th century), and the technologies previously mentioned meant that mail actually cost more to produce than all but the finest of plate armour. Williams compares the cost of 12 oxen for a 9th century helmet, mail and leggings with the cost of only 2 oxen for horseman's plate armour at the end of the 16th century.111 At Iserlohn in the 15th century, a mail haubergeon cost 4.6 gulden while plate armour only cost 4.3 gulden.112 Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times that of a "double breastplate." These records also indicate the huge difference in labour involved. The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate, only 2 days. If plate armour was cheaper, quicker to produce, and offered better protection than mail, one could argue that it would have become popular even if weapons such as longbows, crossbows, and lances never existed. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
It should also be remembered that mail and plate wasn't an either/or kind of thing. A lot of "plate" armors had significant chunks that were made of mail, either to cover areas where joints etc made the wearer more vulnerable or as a cost saving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Alzion posted:force him into a grapple, take him to the ground, then pin him and put a dagger through his visor. Hey be fair. You could also stab them in the neck, groin or armpit too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:I thought I heard (probably in this thread) that, for much of the Medieval period, the cost of chainmail would be more than a suit of plate, because assembling all of the interlocking rings was so labor-intensive, and the Black Death drove wages way up for centuries due to lack of labor supply. Material costs were apparently a lesser fraction. I have read that article before as well and your cherrypicking your facts a little. The article brings up the point of manufacture time involved as the primary factor once metallurgy technology improves. But, if you read carefully they only mention the steel breastplate versus the mail shirt. The breastplate is the most one size fits all piece armor allowing it to be mass manufactured. When this point in history comes into play you see more professional regular soldiers with more income so using a breastplate to augment their mail armor became rather common. Now when considering a full set of plate that a knight would wear you would have to have that custom fitted and smithed. All the pieces would have to fit the wearer and fit with each other exactly. This drives up time to produce and cost massively. Smithing custom plate armor is also a highly skilled work compared to riveting chain links so the man hours involved aren't completely indicative of the final price. In any case the crux of my original argument stays the same. Plate was considered greatly superior and soldiers began augmenting their mail with pieces of plate armor or switching to full suits of plate as soon as they had the means. Cyrano4747 posted:It should also be remembered that mail and plate wasn't an either/or kind of thing. A lot of "plate" armors had significant chunks that were made of mail, either to cover areas where joints etc made the wearer more vulnerable or as a cost saving. When I'm refering to full suits of plate I mean the suits from the late medieval and early modern periods that utilized rondels, couters, etc. for joint protection. Cheaper and earlier suits I usually think of as augmented mail or partial plate armor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Alzion posted:In any case the crux of my original argument stays the same. Plate was considered greatly superior and soldiers began augmenting their mail with pieces of plate armor or switching to full suits of plate as soon as they had the means. This is simply incorrect. I go into it in detail in an old post which would be too much effort to reproduce here so I'll just link you to it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3529788&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=23#post416897008 In short, we have multiple examples (going into the early 16th c.) of people with the means to afford breastplate to supplement their mail foregoing it entirely, for reasons that are not entirely clear. quote:When I'm refering to full suits of plate I mean the suits from the late medieval and early modern periods that utilized rondels, couters, etc. for joint protection. Cheaper and earlier suits I usually think of as augmented mail or partial plate armor. Rondels were not used on their own, and well into the 16th c. you can find mail gussets or in at least one case a surviving arming doublet with mail augmentation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Rondels were not used on their own, and well into the 16th c. you can find mail gussets or in at least one case a surviving arming doublet with mail augmentation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is simply incorrect. I go into it in detail in an old post which would be too much effort to reproduce here so I'll just link you to it: I am aware of mail being worn underneith full suits of plate armor in various fashions. The point I was making was that plate armor was improving so specific pieces of armor were being designed and used for the primary form of joint protection. Thus the armor becoming truely a full set of plate rather than heavily augmented mail. The use of a secondary layer of protection for a blade that could slip through the gaps is a no brainer. I was unaware of widespread examples of foregoing plate augmentation when people had the technological and economic ability to do so. I'll have to look into this more closely, thank you for bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:This has probably been asked before, but are there any detailed cases of soldiers in mail armor fighting opponents in full plate harness? If there were, how did they overcome the difference in protection? I get the impression that mail is more maneuverable than plate, but historical examples would be nice. Full mail vs. full plate would be rare, for reasons covered quite well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7w-_QH607U On the other hand, the mail-and-plates style armours were popular among the Ottomans at the same time as full plate was popular in Europe, so maybe that would be a good direction to look in if you're willing to include the plated mails. Or I think Scotland and Ireland kept using mail later than elsewhere: http://myarmoury.com/feature_armies_irish.html Another issue is records are not always clear about the type of armour: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.12611.html “It was a costly suit, made in the heathen fashion” - but he never actually specifies what kind of armour it is. My experience wearing plate armour is the mobility difference is relatively minor. My gauntlets have a little restriction on the wrist, mainly if I cross my hands such as a zwerchau from my left or a krumphau. Breastplates and brigandines can make crossing the arms a little bit awkward, not prohibitive but not as easy as without it. Generally the fit of the armour and the articulation makes a huge difference though. Well-fitted plate would be nearly as mobile as mail, and the differences would be fairly subtle. I hope those help!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Alzion posted:The point I was making was that plate armor was improving so specific pieces of armor were being designed and used for the primary form of joint protection. Thus the armor becoming truely a full set of plate rather than heavily augmented mail. I think the presence or absence of rondels is a very weird stopping point for whether or not armour is "a full set of plate" when, for example, the Avant armour in the kelvingrove would have been worn with a haubergeon but is primarily composed (by weight, area, whatever) of plates. I mean, most 16th century plate armours don't include them
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article41322930.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Why the hell are you linking to something at kansas.com...oh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Wow. If a youtube video pops up, I'll be the first to dub Yakety Sax into it and post it here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
my favorite bit is the two apparently had some prior quarrel and then the one dude showed up at the other dude's house with a sword
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:my favorite bit is the two apparently had some prior quarrel and then the one dude showed up at the other dude's house with a sword And of course it would be some weeaboo katana bullshit sword instead of something cool like a zweihänder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Just surprised it wasn't Florida.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:And of course it would be some weeaboo katana bullshit sword instead of something cool like a zweihänder. i didn't let renfair people ruin rapiers for me. there's a chick in my fencing class in the us who calls her sword "she" and dresses in purple all the time edit: or the large metalhead dudes who are always a little too into the norse, those guys are also into western martial arts P-Mack posted:Just surprised it wasn't Florida. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:real katanas are cool, don't let weebs ruin them for you Is that chick's username HEY GAL?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:real katanas are cool, don't let weebs ruin them for you Real katanas are cool and samurai are cool, especially when they're played by Toshiro Mifume, but dollars to donuts this guy didn't have a real one. He had some piece of poo poo from the local gaming place made by weebs, for weebs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Real katanas are cool and samurai are cool, especially when they're played by Toshiro Mifume, but dollars to donuts this guy didn't have a real one. He had some piece of poo poo from the local gaming place made by weebs, for weebs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it's weebs all the way down The odor makes a western front trench smell like vanilla extract.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The odor makes a western front trench smell like vanilla extract. No, but it actually smells like vanilla extract
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:apart from the place names, the language it's described in, and the map from Google Maps, this was functionally indistinguishable from the court documents i read all day long I saw your comment before reading the link and just assumed you were talking about one of your dudes. Hey, why were they so litigious? Is it just that their court records survive while older stuff didn't or were they really super sue-happy? If so, why? Were things similar elsewhere? The Return of Martin Guerre (I forget the author's name) either implies or states that the French of roughly the same period loved to get their jurisprudence on, too. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:The Return of Martin Guerre (I forget the author's name) Natalie Zemon Davis for the record. She also talks about some fantastic pardon requests in Fiction in the Archives. All around a really great historian (although I don't work on the early modern period, so what do I know). deadking fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I saw your comment before reading the link and just assumed you were talking about one of your dudes. I think it may just be a side effect of having a really well-developed legal system. The Romans were incredibly lawsuit-happy as well, if the Roman/Greek/Ancient history thread can be believed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
What's the deal with medieval naval combat? From what I've been reading, there was not much innovation from the fifth to fifteenth centuries in terms of strategy and tactics, but that seems really dismissive and hard to believe. Even though there were innovations in construction (clinker style construction of longships?) it seems like this period was even more straightforward than in ancient times, where shooting, rams, and boarding were all present. I'm especially interested in what happened leading up to and during boarding. Were grappling hooks mostly just for lashing the ships together with fighters jumping deck to deck, or did they use them to climb hand over hand above the water? It seems that some ancient Greek ships at times had small numbers of hoplites that were separate from the rowers and were the dedicated fighters for ship-to-ship fighting, but on wikipedia there's like literally a millennium-and-then some gap (hoplites to 1537 where Spain made its first dedicated naval infantry corps) in describing what constituted ship-borne fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marines#History
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Ceramic Shot posted:What's the deal with medieval naval combat? From what I've been reading, there was not much innovation from the fifth to fifteenth centuries in terms of strategy and tactics, but that seems really dismissive and hard to believe. Even though there were innovations in construction (clinker style construction of longships?) it seems like this period was even more straightforward than in ancient times, where shooting, rams, and boarding were all present. You are correct, there weren't any big changes. You could also argue that there weren't any big changes on land either before firearms became common. Ships' troops were separate from the sailors for a long time, and eg. a 16th century Spanish or 5th century bc. Athenian captain who commanded the ship's troops and was the highest ranking person on board wasn't expected to know anything about sailing, and the sailors weren't expected to know anything about handling cannons or hoplite warfare. Lashing ships together was a common tactic, and eg. Vikings lashed their fleets together to form massive fighting platforms. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Speaking of which, how often were catapults and siege weapons in general used in pre-gunpowder naval warfare and how effective were they? I imagine that a big ol' rock falling on top of a galley would do a ton of damage, but accuracy would be a major issue. Ballistae seem like they'd be more accurate, but if even cannons have problems sinking wooden ships it seems like giant crossbows are more useful in anti-personnel than actually trying to damage the ship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Tomn posted:Speaking of which, how often were catapults and siege weapons in general used in pre-gunpowder naval warfare and how effective were they? I imagine that a big ol' rock falling on top of a galley would do a ton of damage, but accuracy would be a major issue. Ballistae seem like they'd be more accurate, but if even cannons have problems sinking wooden ships it seems like giant crossbows are more useful in anti-personnel than actually trying to damage the ship. They were most damaging when they hurled burning stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 13:54
|
|
