|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have any reenactors tried strapping Gopros to their head/weapons yet? Because someone should. No gopros in a Protestant regiment, sorry.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:My strong suspicion would be gisarme as the French term for the English bill and similarly constructed weapons. What leads you to this conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have any reenactors tried strapping Gopros to their head/weapons yet? Because someone should. every now and then; go to youtube and search for Grolle or "Slag Om Grolle" for a start
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:No gopros in a Protestant regiment, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i did an informal poll over breakfast one morning; so many catholics The thirty years' war: Nobody said no catholics in a protestant regiment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
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"  this is how I look when I'm trying to bash someone's brains out with a rock wrapped in cloth
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Wanna try that mace between the legs sweep
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have any reenactors tried strapping Gopros to their head/weapons yet? Because someone should. Not reenactors but my LARP buddy did both. Strapping a gopro to your weapon is the fastest way to get motion sickness you can imagine  Had some cool footage, including me getting concussed from a broken LARP hammer, but we had to take them all down as the organisers banned Gopro footage 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Not reenactors but my LARP buddy did both. Strapping a gopro to your weapon is the fastest way to get motion sickness you can imagine Your organizers suck and I hate them
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What leads you to this conclusion? Nothing concrete, which is why I called it a suspicion rather than a conclusion. Billhooks were a common implement in Anglo-Saxon Britain and mounted to a pole they would have defied categorization as either a spear or an axe. I'm suggesting that if the English had undefined polearms at Hastings they may have been bills on the basis of agricultural billhooks being available in the time and place and the weapon version belonging to the the set of polearms that are not axes or spears etc. It doesn't necessarily follow that gisarme=bill, though, because Wace may simply have lacked a ready term for them in Norman and borrowed a "near-enough" equivalent, or been mistaken in his chronicle about what exactly they were carrying so many years earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:swords are special. your musket/pike has been sold/rented to you by your commander, it's not really yours, sometimes there's shipment problems so they don't arrive when they should, when you go through switzerland sometimes you have to transport them in sealed wagons rather than each soldier carrying his own (the swiss are my subjects' enemies and sometimes they get touchy), but your sword is yours Now I'm curious whether / how much sword control (swords specifically, given this context) was a thing in the Empire and its adjacent polities (cf the Swiss). Are there folks who straight up ain't allowed to carry swords given the symbolic importance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:It doesn't necessarily follow that gisarme=bill, though, because Wace may simply have lacked a ready term for them in Norman and borrowed a "near-enough" equivalent, or been mistaken in his chronicle about what exactly they were carrying so many years earlier. This, more or less, is my hunch. I also suspect that gisarme might, in Wace's time, be a catchall term for non-spearlike polearms. This is partly because Wace is using a French term, which suggests that there is, at least, a polearm of some kind in France. The other major reason is because of the "giserne" in the 14th century manuscript of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is an crescent-shaped axe (not too unlike a berdysh).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This, more or less, is my hunch. I also suspect that gisarme might, in Wace's time, be a catchall term for non-spearlike polearms. This is partly because Wace is using a French term, which suggests that there is, at least, a polearm of some kind in France. The other major reason is because of the "giserne" in the 14th century manuscript of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is an crescent-shaped axe (not too unlike a berdysh). I mean, this is based on a cursory googling so take it with a grain of salt, but I read that Chaucer also used the terms "gisarme" and "bill" (referring to the tool/weapon) somewhat interchangeably in a few of his writings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Hey Hey Rodrigo, in relation to my forthcoming First Crusade effortpost, I want to give you a list of names and ask your opinion of them: Riley-Smith, Tyerman, Runciman, Mayer, David Nicolle, Peter Frankopan, Walter Kaegi, Robert Hoyland, Thomas Asbridge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Hey Hey Rodrigo, in relation to my forthcoming First Crusade effortpost, I want to give you a list of names and ask your opinion of them: Riley-Smith is essential. Runciman and Asbridge I discarded for reasons I can't remember. Here is what I told a friend about Nicolle: Writes a lot about Eastern Europe and Orthodox peoples, but has very little understanding of Orthodoxy. Way too fond of lamellar. The others I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Way too fond of lamellar. The entire world of viking reenactors
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Hey Hey Rodrigo, in relation to my forthcoming First Crusade effortpost, I want to give you a list of names and ask your opinion of them: Rodrigo Diaz posted:Riley-Smith is essential. Runciman and Asbridge I discarded for reasons I can't remember. I remember reading Runciman and finding his work to be almost entirely narrative. He presented his works as a story told more or less chronologically, without delving into the sources or how he came to the conclusions he did - he just presented everything as a narrative of "this happened" without sharing the analysis behind it. In essence he was a storywriter rather than a historian, so for serious research he was kind of a waste. On top of that, Runciman's work finishes by blanket declaring "the Holy War in itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost”, yet I read his first book and found absolutely nothing when reading it to justify that conclusion. At the time I was looking for information on inter-faith relations in the Crusader states, rather than the First or Second or Third or Fourth Crusade, but if the Crusades were a long act of intolerance then surely there'd be something on the ongoing intolerance between the end of the First Crusade in 1099 and the start of the Third Crusade in 1189. A possible explanation would be that Runciman seemed to favour the Byzantines, and he was basing his conclusions far too much on the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople while forgetting about nearly everything else. No nuance takes place in his conclusion, even when the bulk of the events in his narrative seems to be more or less unrelated to his concluding theme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Now I'm curious whether / how much sword control (swords specifically, given this context) was a thing in the Empire and its adjacent polities (cf the Swiss). Are there folks who straight up ain't allowed to carry swords given the symbolic importance? "Weapons" is a narrow and symbolically rich term, remember that literally everyone carries a belt knife and there are many ways to kill people--murder trials involving peasants have them hitting one another with beer steins or shovels, trials with women in them mention cleavers or kitchen implements. These people have ways to kill one another but they aren't "armed." Jews are weapons-unfähig, but they sometimes carry swords when travelling anyway, although they're not supposed to. Peasants aren't supposed to bear "swords" but they carry "long knives" which are like half as long, and thicker too. There is a martial art for Grossmesser, and I've seen some people at my fencing class thwock those things into rolled tatami mats like chopping a melon. For more on who can and can't bear swords and their symbolism, check out Barbara Tlusty's The Martial Ethic In Early Modern Germany, but the title sucks, there's nothing in it about soldiers or warfare, she needed a different word than "martial." https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=35855 Edit: Funny observation: historians who study early modern German cities or how citydwellers think talk about the central importance of the militia for these peoples' conception of themselves and their daily life. Heads of households in Tlusty's book are required to maintain weapons, for instance, and there's a tension in Lyall Roper's Oedipus and the Devil between the part that the same turbulent masculinity that undergirds city defense is also responsible for fistfights and breaking the city's peace. If you read historians of male civilians, you'll get the impression that militias were a big deal. Historians who study mercenaries mention them in very few words, usually something like "the people in this region had a civic militia, they came out against us, we killed them quickly." apparently they sucked bad. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Peasants aren't supposed to bear "swords" but they carry "long knives" which are like half as long, and thicker too. There is a martial art for Grossmesser, and I've seen some people at my fencing class thwock those things into rolled tatami mats like chopping a melon. I got to try out a (blunt practice) messer earlier today, and oh my goodness it is the quickest, most nimble thing. Playing around with one is just an absolute joy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
thwock edit: honestly, a woman killing someone with a cleaver or a male peasant killing someone with a Grossmesser or a shovel will probably end up messier than a male gentile buerger or a soldier rapiering someone to death, for all that the last one is the symbolically important one. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Any papers you'd recommend on 30yw militia organization? I think I'm finally starting to make sense of how it worked in China and want to compare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
check the bibliographies of The Martial Ethic In Early Modern Germany and Oedipus and the Devil chapters 5 and 7. That's city militias--I know almost nothing about regional Landesdefension organizations except that they existed. and this is going to be very different from China at the get-go because China has no city-states in your period HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Some messers reached the length of a proper longsword. "No, constable, this two-handed murdertool is just my everyday knife!" Because, see, the hilt's built like you would build a knife (that is, rivet two slabs of wood on the tang) instead of a real sword with a pommel and everything. This is actually why I don't feel sword-control in the Empire was taken heavily seriously. The whole legal loophole regarding messers (which I've never seen a primary source for, so if anyone can confirm or debunk it I'd appreciate it) only seems plausible if the authorities are willing to accept giant murder-knives being carried around by ordinary citizens, and if they are willing to accept giant murder-knives then disarming the populace is not too high on their list of priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Railtus posted:This is actually why I don't feel sword-control in the Empire was taken heavily seriously. The whole legal loophole regarding messers (which I've never seen a primary source for, so if anyone can confirm or debunk it I'd appreciate it) only seems plausible if the authorities are willing to accept giant murder-knives being carried around by ordinary citizens, and if they are willing to accept giant murder-knives then disarming the populace is not too high on their list of priorities. To be fair, in a different place, my ancestors managed to get around the Habsburgs banning them from carrying weapons around by using "wood hatchets, I swear!" that had conveniently long handles and a chunk of metal in the back that could be remade into an armor piercing spike with some heat and a few twacks with a hammer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Railtus posted:This is actually why I don't feel sword-control in the Empire was taken heavily seriously. The whole legal loophole regarding messers (which I've never seen a primary source for, so if anyone can confirm or debunk it I'd appreciate it) only seems plausible if the authorities are willing to accept giant murder-knives being carried around by ordinary citizens, and if they are willing to accept giant murder-knives then disarming the populace is not too high on their list of priorities. nobody is trying to disarm the populace, this is a populace that will happily kill one another with kitchen knives and pieces of old furniture if they don't have anything else. they are trying to make sure members of one social order do not wear the attributes symbolically appropriate to members of another social order edit: this is a society where every time anyone writes they have a tiny, wickedly sharp knife on the table next to them to sharpen the pen. it is not difficult to find "something to kill someone else with" in early modern europe. but that's not the same thing as "a weapon." HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
This is also the society in which landsknechte were granted a special dispensation to wear ridiculous caricatures of clothing and such a dispensation could exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
do not diss the landsknecht clothing, those brothers are super fly
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:do not diss the landsknecht clothing, those brothers are super fly That's not an insult, I'm just amazed that they were allowed to make themselves into a personified mocking of fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:That's not an insult, I'm just amazed that they were allowed to make themselves into a personified mocking of fashion. sword: check dagger: check pike: check booty shorts (but only on the right hand side): hell of check  i am ready to war now
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:giant murder knives have a completely different symbolic weight to them. the pope's skullcap and a yarmulke are exactly the same shape but they are not the same thing because they mean something different In many ways it seems like more of a sumptuary law than arms control in the conventional sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Sword control was a huge thing. Post that English guy complaining about all the Italian rapiers coming over here and stealing honest English sword's jobs 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:huge sleeves held together with tiny ribbons: check I've always taken your love affair with your subjects' dress as simply a symptom of the usual enthusiasm for one's subject, but this picture has won me over. Your people were the best dressed people in the history of clothes. It's the half pants/half short-shorts that did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've always taken your love affair with your subjects' dress as simply a symptom of the usual enthusiasm for one's subject, but this picture has won me over. Your people were the best dressed people in the history of clothes. A side effect of this is that in this society, men are also sex objects, to be looked at and lusted after. Which sketches like this make quite plain. Imagine what that guy looks like from the front. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've always taken your love affair with your subjects' dress as simply a symptom of the usual enthusiasm for one's subject, but this picture has won me over. Your people were the best dressed people in the history of clothes. It looks like a character from one of the weirder final fantasy games. Just a few more belts and we're there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:one of the things about europe until the middle/end of the 18th century (not really sure when this changed, only that it had changed by the early 19th century) is that they don't believe men are the sexually proactive sex and women's sexuality is passive/reactive. For them, women have stronger sexual appetites than men. Could you expand on this? I don't think I've heard this before and it sounds like a fascinating topic
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
CainsDescendant posted:Could you expand on this? I don't think I've heard this before and it sounds like a fascinating topic There are opposite gender roles, and those are more important than biological sex since these people love order and hierarchy and are terrified of anything that might threaten that, but beneath those there is one biological sex and that is male. The vagina is an inside-out penis, the uterus is a ballsack on the inside, and the ovaries are balls, just again on the inside. Or the penis is an inside-out vagina and the balls are ovaries on the outside, etc. And like men, women have to release seed to produce a child: conception doesn't happen unless both partners come, preferably simultaneously. (Even then it might not work, of course.) (They happened to be correct in the "female seed" area, although wrong about how it was released, but that was by accident--nobody saw an animal egg until 1827 and nobody saw a human egg until the 1920s. Both this idea and the idea that came after it, that our sexuality is passive and men's sexuality is active, are taking place in a very dark area, observationally speaking.) However, women are an inferior version of men. Our seed has less of the element of air in it because it is less purified by vital heat. (Many of the human body's fluids are made by our vital heat from blood, like how we distill various fuels from crude oil. The progression goes blood-->breast milk-->female sperm-->male sperm. This is separate from the four-humors thing, all of these are being made out of blood, which is one of the humors.) It's less good seed. We have less vital heat, less reasoning power, we are shorter and weaker, etc. So we are less able to oppose the demands of our physical nature with reason. We're more lustful, and more easily tempted by, for instance, a nice Landsknecht rear end in a pair of truly ridiculous pants. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
I absolutely guarantee people saw animal eggs long before that. Just not mammal ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
i said my piece and i'm sticking with it
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:And like men, women have to release seed to produce a child: conception doesn't happen unless both partners come, preferably simultaneously. (Even then it might not work, of course.) What was their take on pregnancy as a result of rape? Was there an accepted mechanism for conception if the woman didn't orgasm, or was a pregnancy considered evidence that the woman was actually into it, so it wasn't rape in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What was their take on pregnancy as a result of rape? Was there an accepted mechanism for conception if the woman didn't orgasm, or was a pregnancy considered evidence that the woman was actually into it, so it wasn't rape in the first place? guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:57
|
|