|
Rabhadh posted:Axes are barbarian weapon is probably just a dumb DnD thing from the 70s or whenever, reinforced by heavy metal covers. I think this goes part way to explain it, but the source more likely has to do with vikings becoming the quintessential barbarian in popular thought, and the Dane axe being a named weapon that can be directly associated with them. You also have the treatment of the pre-conquest English (and, from the 12th century, Celts too) as a barbarian people, which may have further stigmatized the weapon. quote:It's not uncommon to see knights with axes in medieval images, I would imagine it's entirely personal preference. Somewhat, but a knight would not be considered completely armed without his sword. This was not just a function of price but rather, I think, because the sword was both effective and a fundamentally warlike piece of kit. We do not hear of peoples being put to the spear, despite the association of spears with war. Being made wholly of steel (OK, ferrous metal) it was more resilient than the spear or the axe, and able to be carried on one's person at all times. To speak of the spear as the "primary" weapon obfuscates that, unlike the modern assault rifle, a spear would be expected to break during use, and was mostly disposable. I certainly agree though that axes were appropriate for nobility. Aside from the depictions you mention, kings including Robert Bruce, Edward III, and Jean II wielded axes. It is interesting to note, though, that these men were contemporaries. The Rule of the Templars, which predates these men, makes allowances for knights to carry a "Turkish mace" in addition to his sword, but no mention of axes. Could be a cultural thing or it could be about perceived effectiveness. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 20, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Axes are barbarian weapon is probably just a dumb DnD thing from the 70s or whenever, reinforced by heavy metal covers. I was going to ask if anyone actually used double axes like this, since I didn't see any in the WP axe article. Apparently they did, but it was (and is) primarily a forestry tool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The Franks liked them so much they named themselves after an axe Where'd you get this? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Frank&allowed_in_frame=0
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Where'd you get this? I had always heard it told that the Francisca is where the name Frank came from, your link claims its a javelin which i've never heard before. No time to actually look into it at the moment, here is a quote from wikipedia just to illustrate I'm not the only person who has said this. Not using this as an argument. "It is traditionally assumed that Frank comes from the Germanic word for "javelin" (such as in Old English franca or Old Norse frakka).[7] There is also another theory that suggests that Frank comes from the Latin word francisca meaning ("throwing axe").[citation needed] "
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
I meant more that it's etymologically unknown : the javelin thing is someone's best guess. So really not anything to base other assumptions on. It also points out that even with that hypothesis, the direction is unknown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good information about the early development of polearms? My amateur interest is mostly in 10th-12th century Europe (particularly Italy), in which polearms - aside from, perhaps, the "Dane Axe" - seem almost nonexistent, and I'm interested in how that changed. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say it's probably linked to developments in the availability of armor - medieval European footmen up to the 12th century seem to have had mail only rarely, so the kite shield was pretty much the whole ballgame when it came to personal defense (along with a helmet). Under those circumstances it's understandable that you wouldn't want to be using a weapon that precluded the use of a shield. But I don't know enough about the spread of mail among foot troops and the development of early polearms to say whether these things actually tracked together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Glass Hand posted:Does anyone have any good information about the early development of polearms? The evolution of polearms could also be linked with the increased number of peasant revolts, because most of the polearms were just peasants' tools on longer poles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Glass Hand posted:Does anyone have any good information about the early development of polearms? Personally I lean away from armour being used as an explanation for the adoption of polearms, just because I see unarmoured troops with polearms. The early Swiss halberdiers tended not to be that heavily armoured most of the time. Later on, pikemen with limited armour seems fairly normal as well. One example I quote a lot is Duke Albrecht's order around 1421, requiring “iron hat, body armour of iron or jerkin, gauntlets and a sword or knife” along with out of every 20 people, there be 4 pikes, 4 war flails, 3 handguns and 8 crossbows (and 1 unknown?). I would interpret that as meaning that body armour of “jerkin” (presumably gambeson or heavy quilted jack) was considered enough. Although it is possible that the ones with iron armour would be armed with pikes and flails while the ones with “jerkin” use handguns or crossbows, but that's just speculation. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that jerkin would require a shield. Also the Flemish spiked staff (aka; goedendag) did not seem to be reserved for heavily armoured troops either. Essentially I don't think polearms necessarily required the wielder be in mail armour, I think polearms wielded by men in cloth armour seem more common, so I tend to be cautious about assuming armour was the reason people abandoned the shield in favour of polearms. On the other hand, polearms could reasonably be linked to developing/spreading armour as a countermeasure to armoured foes being more common. Personally I think developments in tactics and formations, especially combined arms, would be a major factor. Scholagladiatoria mentions that Italy had a notable spear-and-shield tradition (I think citizen militia tradition?) that was notable in Europe – although I don't remember the exact video. Personally I see a lot of polearms as just developing from heavier spears, or winged spears, which if it is beefier would be a partisan. A hewing spear as a heavier version would be a glaive. And so on with no clear point where the variation of a spear ends and the other kind of polearm begins. I know this is kind of vague but I hope it helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Personally I lean away from armour being used as an explanation for the adoption of polearms, just because I see unarmoured troops with polearms. The early Swiss halberdiers tended not to be that heavily armoured most of the time. Later on, pikemen with limited armour seems fairly normal as well. One example I quote a lot is Duke Albrecht's order around 1421, requiring “iron hat, body armour of iron or jerkin, gauntlets and a sword or knife” along with out of every 20 people, there be 4 pikes, 4 war flails, 3 handguns and 8 crossbows (and 1 unknown?). Not to mention later on the early modern, when the standard soldier dude (if not a musketeer) is an unarmoured guy with a pike. The whole point of having a big bunch of guys with polearms is that guys with swords can't get in close enough to hurt them (plus, the pike guy will have a sidearm and drop his pike and use that instead if someone does get in close).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not to mention later on the early modern, when the standard soldier dude (if not a musketeer) is an unarmoured guy with a pike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:he is, in fact, one third of the standard soldier dude. Statistically speaking. Doesn't that vary a bit by period/army? I seem to recall the Covenanters for example being closer to 50/50 (because a pike is a lot cheaper than a musket, see)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Doesn't that vary a bit by period/army? I seem to recall the Covenanters for example being closer to 50/50 (because a pike is a lot cheaper than a musket, see) but it does vary to a small extent, all the companies i'm looking at right now are 80:20:200 pike:halberd:musket
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
O'Neill's Ulster army around 1600 is rocking 5:1 ratio of trained musketeers to pikes. e: with pikes being considered "unsuitable for offensive action" in the Irish landscape
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:O'Neill's Ulster army around 1600 is rocking 5:1 ratio of trained musketeers to pikes. i crossed a wet moat with a pike in my hands once and it was way more difficult than i expected edit: the heavy ground, brush, etc will be some protection for musketeers on its own, especially if they know how to take cover and form little teams while they wait for one another to reload. the same thing that hinders pikes makes them redundant in this situation edit 2: i finally found the period depiction of what fighting in heavy ground is supposed to look like. yes, they did have light infantry tactics: 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Doesn't that vary a bit by period/army? I seem to recall the Covenanters for example being closer to 50/50 (because a pike is a lot cheaper than a musket, see) I don't know the specific ratio, but I'd be surprised. Covenanter armies were comparatively up-to-date, compared with the English troops of the period. They were the first armies in Britain (some of the first in Europe) to wear a recognisable uniform across different regiments, although admittedly it was a type of undyed gray cloth that was about the cheapest available. Covenanter tactics were very Swedish, because most of their military leaders had been high-ranking officers with Gustavus Adolphus. The one big difference is they didn't have access to heavy horses, so their cavalry was mostly light lancers (with equipment basically unchanged from the reiver troops of a century earlier). This is in contrast to the highlanders (or Catholics and Episcopalians, or Royalists, or however you choose to define the non-Covenanter soldiers in Scotland), some of whom were pretty old-school, making widespread use of the bow and various pole arms. Edit: in English armies the ratio of pikes to muskets falls through the period, as tactics catch up to European standards. The New Model Army had about 2:1. Mr Enderby fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Covenanter tactics were very Swedish, because most of their military leaders had been high-ranking officers with Gustavus Adolphus. The one big difference is they didn't have access to heavy horses, edit: and the word milhistorians use for clothing situations like that is proto-uniforms HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I came across some references today in some Carolingian sources to individuals fighting judicial combats with big sticks (fustes) rather than swords, etc. Does this happen in other times/places? I was under the impression that most judicial duels were fought with potentially lethal weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
deadking posted:I came across some references today in some Carolingian sources to individuals fighting judicial combats with big sticks (fustes) rather than swords, etc. Does this happen in other times/places? I was under the impression that most judicial duels were fought with potentially lethal weapons. Now, I'm not certain whether this actually was a judicial duel, but I'll take any excuse to post Talhoffer's illustrations of "man with mace in a hole against woman with flail" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Now, I'm not certain whether this actually was a judicial duel, but I'll take any excuse to post Talhoffer's illustrations of "man with mace in a hole against woman with flail" It is. And he's in the hole to make it more even.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
i'm the early modern workout clothing
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Now, I'm not certain whether this actually was a judicial duel, but I'll take any excuse to post Talhoffer's illustrations of "man with mace in a hole against woman with flail" That is an awesome image, thanks for sharing! When and where is it from out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
deadking posted:That is an awesome image, thanks for sharing! When and where is it from out of curiosity? german from the language in the caption...early 16th century from the style of handwriting? i'm terrible at dating script
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:german from the language in the caption...early 16th century from the style of handwriting? i'm terrible at dating script mid 1400's was when talhoffer wronte fencing manuals i think
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
It's from this fencing manual, dated 1459.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Kassad posted:It's from this fencing manual, dated 1459. 50 years off, i suck completely
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:50 years off, i suck completely Post more picks of you and your kit and we'll let it slide
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Post more picks of you and your kit and we'll let it slide BBQ reenactment 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
don't post pictures of my weekend
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I don't know the specific ratio, but I'd be surprised. Covenanter armies were comparatively up-to-date, compared with the English troops of the period. They were the first armies in Britain (some of the first in Europe) to wear a recognisable uniform across different regiments, although admittedly it was a type of undyed gray cloth that was about the cheapest available. That's kind of what I was getting at - Scotland wasn't backward or run by stupid people or anything, and I'm sure they'd like as much shot to pike as they could get, but Scotland was a smaller and poorer country than England so it was kind of running its military on a shoestring. While it was indeed very modern for the time, I suspect the reason for the state issuing hodden grey to the troops was a comparative lack of rich dudes willing to buy uniforms for and equip regiments themselves. That said I couldn't find anything too informative looking around about Scottish pike to shot ratios, so I could be wrong on that particular point v0v
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:BBQ reenactment I'M SO SORRY IT HAD TO END LIKE THIS HERR WILLIKERS this is so hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Glass Hand posted:Does anyone have any good information about the early development of polearms? We do know that there were some kinds of polearms around in the 11th and 12th centuries. Wace, writing in the mid-12th century, describes English soldiers wielding long "gisarme" at Hastings, and he uses this as a word distinct from spear or axe. What the gisarme was, however, is anyone's guess. We also know longer spears were around. We know from the Praecepta Militaria that the average Byzantine spearman of that time wielded a weapon of around 13 ft. in length, and there was also the somewhat shorter, but much stouter, menavlion, a particularly heavy spear for dealing with kataphraktoi, which was about 11 ft. in length. I'm fairly sure Galbert of Bruges mentions pikes in the early/mid 12th c, though I haven't looked at The Murder of Charles the Good in a while. quote:If I had to hazard a guess, I would say it's probably linked to developments in the availability of armor - medieval European footmen up to the 12th century seem to have had mail only rarely, so the kite shield was pretty much the whole ballgame when it came to personal defense (along with a helmet). Under those circumstances it's understandable that you wouldn't want to be using a weapon that precluded the use of a shield. But I don't know enough about the spread of mail among foot troops and the development of early polearms to say whether these things actually tracked together. Here you are mistaken! Mail may have been uncommon (though other armours were available) but it was not rare, per se. It seems probable, for example, that most of the English combatants at Hastings were mail-armoured, and all the combatants at Brémule certainly were. Indeed, Suger refers to the Norman foot soldiers as super armatos pedites. Galbert, meanwhile, makes special mention of the men of Ghent as being particularly well armored when they arrived at the siege of Bruges. Peter of Eboli, in the late 12th c., described crossbowmen as wearing mail and iron cap, contrasting them to selfbow archers who went without armour. On the other hand, of course, Byzantine heavy infantry in the Praecepta (the guys with the long spears above) wore padded armour, including a felt cap that was wound something like a turban, and the light infantry and archers were even more lightly armored. But then these are 100-200+ years apart depending on what source you're comparing it to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
re: pike combat, what does two pike "walls" encountering each other look like? for example, how well can one aim a thrust at the opposing line? i've always had this image of people just jabbing out blindly but that seems unrealistic. would thrusts have been "measured", with each pikeman picking a specific target and striking at will, or was it a synchronized action similar to a musket volley?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That said I couldn't find anything too informative looking around about Scottish pike to shot ratios, so I could be wrong on that particular point v0v Ha, true that. Googling this stuff takes you down a rabbit hole of Sealed Knotters and miniature painters. There was some dude on a forum claiming that there was a Covenanter regiment who wore black coats, which were minister's offcasts, which would be cool if true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
shallowj posted:re: pike combat, what does two pike "walls" encountering each other look like? for example, how well can one aim a thrust at the opposing line? i've always had this image of people just jabbing out blindly but that seems unrealistic. would thrusts have been "measured", with each pikeman picking a specific target and striking at will, or was it a synchronized action similar to a musket volley? I started listening to Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast last night and he had a chapter about this in the English Civil War. He described it as a push of pike, in which two opposing formations would....push on each other until one broke and routed. He also mentioned that it would depend on the fighting spirit of the armies a little bit--including instances where neither side really felt like killing and dying and would just sort of make a show of it and hope no officers were paying attention to them. Not that half-listening to a podcast episode in the background while playing a video game makes me an expert or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:He described it as a push of pike, in which two opposing formations would....push on each other until one broke and routed. Here is some historical footage of a Civil War battle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t_4g5f04PA
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I started listening to Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast last night and he had a chapter about this in the English Civil War. Fortunately we have someone literally doing a PhD on this stuff itt!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Fortunately we have someone literally doing a PhD on this stuff itt! They probably know more than me! I guess the more I think about it the less I understand what it would a "push" would look like. I'd assume the ones in front would use the pointy end, and that would have to kill some people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:We do know that there were some kinds of polearms around in the 11th and 12th centuries. Wace, writing in the mid-12th century, describes English soldiers wielding long "gisarme" at Hastings, and he uses this as a word distinct from spear or axe. What the gisarme was, however, is anyone's guess. My strong suspicion would be gisarme as the French term for the English bill and similarly constructed weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
shallowj posted:re: pike combat, what does two pike "walls" encountering each other look like? for example, how well can one aim a thrust at the opposing line? i've always had this image of people just jabbing out blindly but that seems unrealistic. would thrusts have been "measured", with each pikeman picking a specific target and striking at will, or was it a synchronized action similar to a musket volley? the first thing my corporal told me was when you close with the other guys, "pick your opponent, look him in the eye, and think: i will go through you." of course, this is a game we have based on something kind of like "what it really was," it's not that similar to the actual combat Ainsley McTree posted:They probably know more than me! edit: imagine one guy attempting to stab another guy with a pike and then multiply them by 1000-600 HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Have any reenactors tried strapping Gopros to their head/weapons yet? Because someone should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:40
|
|
