|
JaucheCharly posted:Eurasia? Then why a crossbow? What you describe sounds like a job for Crimean Tartars. Ever heard of the Akinci? Their raids are legendary. You'd need alot of horses though.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Really helpful stuff guys, thanks!mossyfisk posted:I don't think the physics of it is important here. If she doesn't carry a sword then throwing her axe at someone means she is no longer holding a weapon, and is going to die. The way I envision it, this is a one-time thing. A raid has gone pear-shaped, and they're retreating in disarray. She gets split up from the others, and stumbles into an enemy sentry who is returning to see what's going on. It's her first time in close quarters, and her training has always been "keep them out of reach". She gets panicky, doesn't think it through, and only a split-second after it's left her hand does she realize she's just disarmed herself. By a stroke of luck, her aim is perfect and it drops the guy just like that. Maybe dead, maybe just stunned, who cares, time to run like hell and hope she doesn't meet anyone else. She does have her dagger as back-up, but that's not exactly the last word in melee combat. JaucheCharly posted:Eurasia? Then why a crossbow? What you describe sounds like a job for Crimean Tartars. Ever heard of the Akinci? Their raids are legendary. You'd need alot of horses though. I'd thought about it, but I can't make a company of horse archers work, it opens up more inconsistencies than I want to deal with. I went with crossbow because her comparatively well-supplied enemies use them almost exclusively, so she can grab bolts/spare parts/replacements without too much difficulty. The lack of horses ties in with the lack of fighting men; essentially, a recurring theme is that the war stopped making logistical sense a long time ago, but both sides would seemingly rather fight until a total economic collapse than sign a peace treaty. Because sometimes people are stupid, sometimes they're unreasonable, and sometimes they're stupid and unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:some central asian steppe people were ok with women fighting, too. From what I've read there's been a recent realization that far more cultures than were previously thought had women fighting. For a very long time if somebody was found buried with weapons and their skeleton showed signs of having been injured/killed in battle it was obviously male. Closer analysis of the skeletons found that far more cultures were totally cool with women fighting and even commanding. If you aren't going for perfect historical accuracy (which is especially fine when you consider that records of much of the medieval era suck and it was, you know, several centuries long) just get a good enough idea that it seems authentic. Actually another thing I'll say is a quote my painting professor said that applies to pretty much anything creative. "Never let reality get in the way of a good painting." Since you're writing fiction go ahead and twist reality to suit your needs. You don't need it to be perfect; writing a good story should be your main concern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Either her people are fine with fighting women or she could be pretending to be a guy, either is perfectly realistic. if you saw this person coming at you on a battlefield with a flag in their hands, you probably wouldn't immediately think "woman" edit: you'd probably think the 17th century was full of terrible haircuts. and you would be correct. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:So I'm writing a story, which takes place in a fictional setting but is directly inspired by early Renaissance Eurasia. The main character is a female mercenary, which is unusual but not unheard of in the context of the narrative (i.e. the culture is more liberal towards women than most, and this particular war has dragged on long enough that the supply of military-age men is dangerously low.) I'm making a real effort to be somewhat plausible, even if there's no direct historical parallel, and I was hoping to get some input on some of these elements: So the buried lede in this post is that your war has dragged on so much that the supply of "military-age men" (which can mean a lot of different things tbh) is badly depleted due to longevity of war. Due to the nature of warfare in this period (lacking general mobilization or anything like it) this means that the entire populace of the region in question is badly depleted, not just the male half. Remember, this is a period in which the distinction between combatant and noncombatant is very flexible, and there are no singular front across which you can meet the foe. This is compounded by the fact that one of the most-used weapons in pre-industrialized warfare was hunger, and this was a conscious strategic decision rather than a mere accident of circumstance. To take a historical example, while William I's Harrying of the North ended with a lot of dead purely from sword and lance, it was the artificial famine he and his forces created that killed the most. quote:1.) Her mercenary company numbers about 150, with relatively few horses (the same war that's killed of all the men has had a similar effect on horses.) They operate somewhat like modern partisans- attacking from ambush, raiding supply trains, feinting for a larger force, intercepting messengers, etc. They operate mostly in rough terrain, since they have no cavalry. Plausible? The problem with rough terrain is that it is also generally undesirable. Once the Thebans took Messenia from Sparta, they were content to leave them with the relatively barren peninsula of Lacedaemon. So, too, did Philip II neglect to fight them even after they rejected his demand to lay down their arms. Some spots are just not worth it, depending on the attacker's strategic aims. What I mean is you will probably want a rationale to justify why the bad guys are there in the first place. quote:3.) For the physics-inclined, would it be possible for her to throw her hatchet into an enemy's face and have it kill them? She's strong and the weapon is good steel, but skulls are tough, especially head-on... That is possible but just remember that fighting axes and felling axes have different blade profiles. Fighting axe blades are much thinner than hatchets or whatever. You can use a hatchet as a weapon, just be aware it isn't as effective as a dedicated battle axe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:
If we're free to play with geography, maybe we can assume that the area is in a gap between two mountain ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
I love the guy on the far right who's all "what the gently caress dude?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
"Brother Anselm, what are you drawing?" "Um, it's two dudes having a fight. I haven't got to the swords yet."
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
I'm having trouble figuring out how...prominent currency would have been during the medieval period. I read a book a little while back all about how lots of people had sort of a "favor" economy with people that they dealt with on a regular bases, especially in situations where there was insufficient money supply, and I can't really figure out how much physical coinage people lower down like peasants would have on hand. And then there's all the pilgrims you hear about in these days. Did people trying to go on long journeys around this time amass lots of coinage to pay for food and places to stay, did they rely on the kindness of strangers, or did they just try their luck at living off the land along their way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Here, have a lecture Christopher Dyer (PDF) delivered at the British Numismatic Society. Dyer is probably the most prominent historian of daily life in medieval Britain, and the currency nerds invited him to talk about what ordinary rural people did with coins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm having trouble figuring out how...prominent currency would have been during the medieval period. I read a book a little while back all about how lots of people had sort of a "favor" economy with people that they dealt with on a regular bases, especially in situations where there was insufficient money supply, and I can't really figure out how much physical coinage people lower down like peasants would have on hand. It really depends on when and where you're talking about in the medieval world. The very broad overview of the situation is this: In the immediate post-Roman period both the money supply and the circulation and use of coins seems to have declined substantially. For example, while the Merovingian kings in what's now France continued to mint and use gold coins, but these basically become prestige objects meant for hoarding or circulating in "gift and prestige economies" (much like the role of arm rings in a poem like Beowulf) rather than "actual" economic exchange. The minting and circulation of smaller denominations of bronze or silver, that is those coins which are much more useful for regular transactions declines. As a result, people probably relied more heavily on the "favor economy" you mentioned, as well as barter, for locally produced goods they can't make themselves (long-distance exchange, which relied heavily on the infrastructure maintained by the Roman Empire, especially the military, severely contracts in this period as well). This situation seems to have started to change around the late 8th/early 9th centuries. During this time, the Carolingian kings, starting with Charlemagne, begin to issue silver money again, which increases the supply of available currency. At the same time, there are several broader changes going on that, in one of those annoying historical causal situations, either facilitate or are facilitated by an increased currency supply. First, agricultural estates are intensifying, growing larger, and specializing. One result of this is that the people who own these estates need a way to convert agricultural produce into a more portable, spendable form of wealth: currency. Second, long-distance exchange begins to pick up again, as reflected in the growth of trade emporiums like Dorestad in the Netherlands. Currency is preferable for long-distance exchanges for obvious reasons. Later in the Middle Ages is where I start to lose the thread (because I work on that earlier period), but several important things happen which contribute to the increased use of currency. The rise of medieval cities, which take advantage of the upswing in long-distance exchange and whose inhabitants need to be paid in coin so they can purchase the food they no longer produce themselves. The increasing market orientation of medieval agriculture increases the money supply in the rural economy as produce is no longer consumed locally, but brought to market to be sold. At the same time, coin becomes a much more appealing form of payment (either for labor, or as rent, etc) than labor service or agricultural produce. Armies also become increasingly professionalized and paid in coin, but I'm sure the military historians in the thread can tell you much more about that. So, the broadest possible answer is that it varies greatly, but as that Dyer article points out, peasants in high and later medieval England had pretty good access to currency. As for your question about pilgrims, I'm not totally sure. My inclination is to say that the type of people who can afford to go off on the type of long-range pilgrimages I assume you're referring to (there are saints' shrines all over the place, so it's not hard to find a local one) would be fairly wealthy. Pilgrimage is also a religiously prestigious activity, and helping pilgrims is seen as a religious good, so in theory they could rely on alms on their way. Edit: I should also say that the above picture is for Western Europe. The use of money in the eastern Mediterranean world survives longer and never declines as fully. For example, the Byzantine army is paid in coin up until at least the 8th century (I think). deadking fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
And paying an army in cash is always a nightmare realm. Our money is an idea, or a relationship. It can also be a substance (paper). The money of the people I study is a substance--well, two substances actually, gold or silver--and both of those substances come from Spain. If you're France, getting enough of it is difficult enough--they're always short of money--and then just imagine paying an army with it. You have to transport it, first of all...   (from David Parrott: Richelieu's Army) It's scarcely better in other armies, the Spanish Army of Naples, which employs the people I study, has about 2,000 gulden cash (i am not sure how much it really was, because the English language source said "2,000 crowns," which isn't Spanish or Italian currency) in its treasury during the time I study, which is about two thirds the amount required to pay (not support, pay) a single company for a single month HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:And paying an army in cash is always a nightmare realm. Our money is an idea, or a relationship. It can also be a substance (paper). The money of the people I study is a substance--well, two substances actually, gold or silver--and both of those substances come from Spain. If you're France, getting enough of it is difficult enough--they're always short of money--and then just imagine paying an army with it. You have to transport it, first of all... I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", but were any of the employers trusted enough to only pay less frequently and not require them to pull around all that currency? Relatedly, how frequently were mercenary defections over pay caused by logistical difficulties?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Not paying soldiers was common as hell. Some of the Swedish regiments in the 1630's had six years worth of pay in arrears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not paying soldiers was common as hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
How long did it generally take mercenaries to start defecting or refusing to follow order when not paid? What about non-mercs? Obviously this varies hugely with time and place and nationality, but I'm curious if there's a range or some such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's "plan A," in fact Is there much of a connection between the massive amounts of coin due to these armies and the evolution of paper money and checks and money orders and those sorts of things?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Elyv posted:How long did it generally take mercenaries to start defecting or refusing to follow order when not paid? What about non-mercs? they'll leave whenever they please and an experienced commander knows he's got to get the troops into the field as soon as he can because once they're mustered in a unit starts hemorrhaging dudes. it's worse after a setback, if they're stationed in a bad area, if there's no plunder. it's better before a battle. edit: a number of people in this period had campaigns end badly when their armies vanished out from under them edit 2: everyone is constantly recruiting to try to make this up, but it's never really enough edit 3: the first month's pay, the delivery money (you get it to pay your expenses while traveling from wherever you're recruited to wherever you're going to be mustered in) and the sign-up bonus are guaranteed by custom, nobody fucks with that. so if nothing else is forthcoming, people will probably start leaving once that runs out. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Is there much of a connection between the massive amounts of coin due to these armies and the evolution of paper money and checks and money orders and those sorts of things?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i have no idea, although as you can see in that quote people did use checks. I know that banknotes became a standard in France because Louis XIV didn't have enough precious metal after all his wars, but I wasn't sure if these were earlier versions of the same thing. From the way you've described things, it sounds like nobody ever got paid back then. Is that accurate? Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I know that banknotes became a standard in France because Louis XIV didn't have enough precious metal after all his wars, but I wasn't sure if these were earlier versions of the same thing. there's a reason both spain's bankers and a lot of its generals were genoese ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:From the way you've described things, it sounds like nobody ever got paid back then. Is that accurate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:there's a reason both spain's bankers and a lot of its generals were genoese Passing the buck? "Sorry, you'll have to take this up with the main office in Genoa." quote:see edit three. you are also paid when you're mustered out. Ah. Sounds a lot like a combination of Civil War enlistment bonuses and Roman legionary retirement payments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:From the way you've described things, it sounds like nobody ever got paid back then. Is that accurate? Sweden had their army in the field mutiny a bunch of times during the 30YW, usually the state scrounged up a bunch of coin to pay the soldiers something whenever they wanted to be sure the army just didn't disband whenever they left winter quarters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Passing the buck? "Sorry, you'll have to take this up with the main office in Genoa."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i have no idea, although as you can see in that quote people did use checks. One thing was that the Swedes had fuckall for actual money, so they borrowed money from Amsterdam, using future iron and copper exports as collateral, and these loans were frequently done as sort of proto-money orders. So funding wars deffo made people invent new finance instruments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:One thing was that the Swedes had fuckall for actual money, so they borrowed money from Amsterdam, using future iron and copper exports as collateral, and these loans were frequently done as sort of proto-money orders. So funding wars deffo made people invent new finance instruments. oh god, if it weren't so late i would post about how spain leverages future treasure fleets to finance its government bonds which were more attractive than you'd think, since the interest on them was so high. admittedly, the government went bankrupt every so often, but they were still a worthwhile investment. what's a total financial meltdown between friends
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Is there much of a connection between the massive amounts of coin due to these armies and the evolution of paper money and checks and money orders and those sorts of things? If memory serves most of using banknotes happened because merchants wanted an easier, safer way to transfer money. If the gold is in a vault and you have a piece of paper that says "X person can go to Y vault and get Z amount of gold whenever he wants" then the paper is as good as having the gold. In the end you'd have seals, signatures, and whatever put on the paper for it's legitimacy. Then you'd have things like "Richy McDutchguy has transferred the ownership of this gold to Wealthy McEnglishman" and then "Frenchy McMerchant now owns this gold." If soldiers got paid the pay was complete rear end; not nearly enough to make bank notes matter. This was a time when the common soldier was probably also illiterate and unlikely to understand the banknote or do the math necessary to tell if he was getting ripped off or not. Paper was also not exactly cheap so the paper itself was probably worth more than the soldier would get paid. Armies were mostly maintained more informally; think militias, levies, and whatnot. It was more likely that the army was kind of sort of fed and mostly expected to forage whatever area they were in for their supplies. Guns existing was one of the things that led to more organized armies. Early medieval armies were not only smaller but could get whatever they needed from wherever they happened to be. Gunpowder was a logistical nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
During the English Civil War the need for coinage exploded. As others in this thread have intimated, most economic activity in the period didn't require coinage, but paying soldiers did. As a result, pretty much every piece of silver in the country was melted down over the period. Famously, some of it went to make "siege money". That is small squares of cut up silver tableware, stamped with a denomination. Some of this was genuinely produced during sieges, when no money to pay garrisons could be accessed, but a lot was produced because of the overall very high demand for specei. Most silver went into traditionally minted coins though. Soldiers needed coin because they might be needed to travel hundreds of miles, to places where they had no credit and had to pay on the nose for everything. Also nobody wants to have an armed man in their debt. Civilians needed coin because soldiers carry loot, and are desperate to sell it for ready money. When looting takes place, it's never the soldiers who make the money because they sell everything off for beer money immediately. If you can provide the beer money, you're quids in. In the end, Parliament couldn't scrape together enough cash to settle the back-pay for the New Model Army, so they couldn't disband them, which eventually lead to the Army taking over control of the country after the Third Civil War. As a side note, the English did in fact manage to pay their sailors in credit notes during the second Anglo-Dutch war. The key differences being that sailors were half way to prisoners already, and had much less ability to mutiny or desert. Also prize money had the potential to greatly outweigh salaries. Even so, the practice came under very close scrutiny, and almost cost Samuel Pepys his career.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Civilians needed coin because soldiers carry loot, and are desperate to sell it for ready money. When looting takes place, it's never the soldiers who make the money because they sell everything off for beer money immediately. If you can provide the beer money, you're quids in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves most of using banknotes happened because merchants wanted an easier, safer way to transfer money. If the gold is in a vault and you have a piece of paper that says "X person can go to Y vault and get Z amount of gold whenever he wants" then the paper is as good as having the gold. In the end you'd have seals, signatures, and whatever put on the paper for it's legitimacy. Then you'd have things like "Richy McDutchguy has transferred the ownership of this gold to Wealthy McEnglishman" and then "Frenchy McMerchant now owns this gold." If I recall correctly, one of the earliest forms of this kind of banking was developed by the Templars for pilgrims/crusaders. So if you are a pilgrim with some wealth, you can deposit it with the Templars in France before you travel, and then receive an equal amount at your destination upon presentation of a letter of credit. This would make you less desirable to bandits and whatnot on the way there (and a lighter travel pack too, I guess).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:It's impossible to exaggerate how fast this happens, either--the mercenary/diarist Peter Hagendorf was at the Sack of Magdeburg (he didn't take part, having been shot a few days earlier) and he mentions people exchanging their poo poo for cash during the first day, which would have been while everything was still going on. How often did the soldiers loot the people buying their looted poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How often did the soldiers loot the people buying their looted poo poo? edit: from otto von guericke's account of the sack: quote:Then was there naught but beating and burning, plundering, torture, rape and murder. Most especially was every enemy bent on securing much booty. When a marauding party entered a house, if its master had anything to give he might thereby purchase respite and protection for himself and his family till the next man, who also wanted something should come along. It was only when everything had been brought forth and there was nothing left to give that the real trouble commenced. Then, what with blows and threats of shooting, stabbing and hanging, the poor people were so terrified that if they had had anything left they would have brought it forth if it had been buried in the earth or hidden away. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
on an Average day in the Thirty years war, do you know roughly how many total men were working as mercenaries between the two sides?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Elyv posted:How long did it generally take mercenaries to start defecting or refusing to follow order when not paid? What about non-mercs? These guys: https://myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html - would often leave on the first missed payday. So the range appears to be anywhere from "immediately" to "six years worth in arrears."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
 more Urs Graf pretty sure I'm onto something here, Rodrigo Diaz
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:pretty sure I'm onto something here, Rodrigo Diaz Will you two just fight a duel already? D'you need a second?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:oh god, if it weren't so late i would post about how spain leverages future treasure fleets to finance its government bonds Was this before the 16th century? I know New World gold flooded the market and caused massive inflation. Mr Enderby posted:Even so, the practice came under very close scrutiny, and almost cost Samuel Pepys his career. This dude is a pro read by the way. He kept a diary for a decade, one of the most detailed first-hand accounts of the early modern period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:28
|
|
