|
Fuschia tude posted:Was this before the 16th century? I know New World gold flooded the market and caused massive inflation.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Can anyone talk about the Salic Law in France? Read this claim: "in the early 1500s, legists and scholars schooled in the humanist techniques of philology and historical research proved the fraudulence of the French Salic Law, which was supposed to exclude women from succession to monarchic office in the kingdom." This is from Queer/Early/Modern by Carla Freccero, which is cultural/critical theory rather than History. Freccero cites Hanley "The Monarchic State in Early Modern France" and "La loi salique", which my university doesn't have access to it seems. Now obviously the entire Salic Law isn't a forgery; I think this claim means that the Salic Law as being applied to dynastic inheritance and not simply familial property was an inserted "forgery". Googling seems to point towards Jean de Montreuil (1354 - 1418) as one of the legists responsible for this. How accurate is this depiction? And can anyone shed light on the discovery of this forgery in the 1500s cited by Freccero?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Was this before the 16th century? I know New World gold flooded the market and caused massive inflation. Half of which is him cheating on his wife with like a zillion other chicks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
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 I love that the governments of this period have so much stable income and financial nous that they basically have to go to Wonga for a payday loan to cover their bills.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
The treasure fleet comes in once a year, almost always: it was lost to the Dutch admiral Piet Hayn once, and I think lost due to a storm once. (In '22, but I can't find an article on it.) So treasure fleet futures are, statistically, pretty safe. And they are what Spain does business with--each year's present-day actual treasure fleet goes straight into the dumpster fire that is the interest on Spain's debts, so one now trades in the projected revenue from several years hence. Everyone here stopped dealing in real life money years ago. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The treasure fleet comes in once a year, almost always: it was lost to the Dutch admiral Piet Hayn once, and I think lost due to a storm once. (In '22, but I can't find an article on it.) So treasure fleet futures are, statistically, pretty safe. And they are what Spain does business with--each year's present-day actual treasure fleet goes straight into the dumpster fire that is the interest on Spain's debts, so one now trades in the projected revenue from several years hence. Hey, Britain got half of one once! Best Britain, too, the Commonwealth not this silly monarchy nonsense (it wasn't for lack of trying for the full shebang, either, Piet Hayn made dollar signs appear in a lot of British government eyes in this period).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Hey, Britain got half of one once! Best Britain, too, the Commonwealth not this silly monarchy nonsense Best Britain? Yeah right. Hurr I'm Oliver Cromwell I'm ugly as poo poo and I loving love genocide hurrrrr.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
On the other hand, almost getting universal male sufferage in the 17th century is as cool as hell, even if the New Model Army never got to implement it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
The 17th century is the 16th century's brain damaged son
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Best Britain? Yeah right. A rare blemish on Britain's foreign policy through the years HEY GAL posted:The treasure fleet comes in once a year, almost always: it was lost to the Dutch admiral Piet Hayn once, and I think lost due to a storm once. (In '22, but I can't find an article on it.) So treasure fleet futures are, statistically, pretty safe. And they are what Spain does business with--each year's present-day actual treasure fleet goes straight into the dumpster fire that is the interest on Spain's debts, so one now trades in the projected revenue from several years hence. What made the treasure fleet so (relatively) safe? It sounds like if it was such a big deal, every other power with a navy would want to take a shot at it. What kept them from succeeding most of the time? Was it just that the spanish protected it with enough strength to make trying to attack it Not Worth The Trouble, or were there other factors? (I know absolutely zilch about this apart from what I just read on the forums just now, and from playing Sid Meier's Pirates! so that's the position I'm coming from with my question. It actually occurs to me as I write it that I'm not clear on whether it's literally a fleet or just a general name for a convoy system)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What made the treasure fleet so (relatively) safe? It sounds like if it was such a big deal, every other power with a navy would want to take a shot at it. What kept them from succeeding most of the time? Was it just that the spanish protected it with enough strength to make trying to attack it Not Worth The Trouble, or were there other factors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Also relatively hard to pinpoint where to be waiting to ambush the convoy with your own bigass pile of warships, right? I'm assuming they took a similar route each time, but the open ocean is big, and a bigass pile of warships hanging out near the Spanish coast would draw some attention, I would think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Best Britain? Yeah right. Ehhhh not unusually so for the period in either sense. That said Im more a Levellers fan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
The interesting thing about the whole treasure fleet story is that it's happening at the same time as China comes off paper money, and starts using silver coins instead. Europeans are really just the middle-men in this conveyor belt carrying silver from the New World (and Japan) to China. Hence why the bullionist explanation for the rapid inflation in Europe during the period is at best incomplete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What made the treasure fleet so (relatively) safe? It sounds like if it was such a big deal, every other power with a navy would want to take a shot at it. What kept them from succeeding most of the time? Was it just that the spanish protected it with enough strength to make trying to attack it Not Worth The Trouble, or were there other factors? A thing to remember is that during much of the colonial era Spain was the world's super power. They were later dethroned by the British Empire but generally speaking pissing off Spain was a poor idea. That is also why the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English was such a huge deal. Before that the Spanish looked nearly invincible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A thing to remember is that during much of the colonial era Spain was the world's super power. They were later dethroned by the British Empire but generally speaking pissing off Spain was a poor idea. That is also why the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English was such a huge deal. Before that the Spanish looked nearly invincible. And nobody mentions that the English Armada was defeated by the Spanish shortly afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
shallowj posted:Can anyone talk about the Salic Law in France? Read this claim: "in the early 1500s, legists and scholars schooled in the humanist techniques of philology and historical research proved the fraudulence of the French Salic Law, which was supposed to exclude women from succession to monarchic office in the kingdom." This is from Queer/Early/Modern by Carla Freccero, which is cultural/critical theory rather than History. Freccero cites Hanley "The Monarchic State in Early Modern France" and "La loi salique", which my university doesn't have access to it seems. Now obviously the entire Salic Law isn't a forgery; I think this claim means that the Salic Law as being applied to dynastic inheritance and not simply familial property was an inserted "forgery". Googling seems to point towards Jean de Montreuil (1354 - 1418) as one of the legists responsible for this. I don't know a ton about the later reception of Salic Law, but it certainly isn't a forgery. The Salic Law is an early medieval law code first issued in written form by the Merovingian Frankish kings. It's generally thought that the Salic Law was based on older oral traditions, but IMO its reliance on oral tradition is overstated. With the rediscovery of Roman law by European scholars starting in the 12th century, the Salic Law was displaced in certain parts of France. In fact, up to the period right before the French Revolution you can find reference to a split in France between "customary" (i.e. Salic Law) and Roman law. As you point out, Salic Law does deal with inheritance, but as far as I now, not dynastic succession. It was invoked in later dynastic disputes (if I remember correctly) to exclude foreign claimants from the French throne. So, basically, Salic Law itself is not a forgery, but its application to dynastic politics is a later interpretation. You never see early medieval Frankish kings making recourse to Salic Law in dynastic conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A thing to remember is that during much of the colonial era Spain was the world's super power. They were later dethroned by the British Empire but generally speaking pissing off Spain was a poor idea. That is also why the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English was such a huge deal. Before that the Spanish looked nearly invincible. Ironically, this is something I learned from playing Sid Meier's Pirates! and just forgot somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
deadking posted:I don't know a ton about the later reception of Salic Law, but it certainly isn't a forgery. The Salic Law is an early medieval law code first issued in written form by the Merovingian Frankish kings. It's generally thought that the Salic Law was based on older oral traditions, but IMO its reliance on oral tradition is overstated. With the rediscovery of Roman law by European scholars starting in the 12th century, the Salic Law was displaced in certain parts of France. In fact, up to the period right before the French Revolution you can find reference to a split in France between "customary" (i.e. Salic Law) and Roman law. It is actually more like, when one of the French kings died, leaving only his sister as his heir, the uncle showed up with an army and was like, "no chicks allowed to rule France". And everyone was like, "wow, that is a big army. And those spears, very pointy. We see your points. Your interpretation of inheritance law is the correct one, here is the official paperwork." And on that basis, Salic law for the monarchy becomes a thing. Later on, when the English king tried to claim the throne through a lady descendant, the French were like, no, screw you, uh, Salic law. So it was more of a pragmatic thing to use, until it became a tradition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The 17th century is the 16th century's brain damaged son
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Everyone's just jealous their revolution wasn't as big as 1789 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Everyone's just jealous their revolution wasn't as big as 1789 Eh, the English were chopping the heads off of kings before it was cool. Rodrigo Diaz posted:The 17th century is the 16th century's brain damaged son The 17th century is the redneck relative of the centuries, what with the huge stockpile of muskets, bad hygiene and marrying their cousins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A thing to remember is that during much of the colonial era Spain was the world's super power. They were later dethroned by the British Empire but generally speaking pissing off Spain was a poor idea. That is also why the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English was such a huge deal. Before that the Spanish looked nearly invincible. Actually they were dethroned by the French. Britain didn't get to be Empire Number One until roughly the Napoleonic Wars, luckily for you Americans since France pushing the Royal Navy's poo poo in is what won the War of Independence. That said - there was never a period during history where Britain was the world's foremost land power; the British army has at best been 'ok-ish but not going to get anything done without allies'. At pretty much any point in the last thousand years, there was always another country that if it could just get its army onto British soil it would have steamrolled its way into London. Spain up to the mid-17th century, France up to maybe the 1860s, Prussia/Germany after that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Man, this here is really funny: http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22816/lot/83/ You might not notice, but this is poo poo. Probably the work of a contemporary hungarian bowyer who got alot of flak for making and selling "hornbows" with modern glues, fiberglass and screws inside, though stating that they're made with materials like the old bows. Why is this poo poo? First, the profile of the horn is completely wrong. It is never flat in the old bows, but strongly convex, most pronounced in the grip. The grip on this piece is a loving joke. The transition over the arrow pass into the limb is also wrong. In the real bows, it slowly increases in width, like the natural shape of the hornstrip. Not thin and then full width after 5cm. The "horn" looks exactly like the stuff that he uses (it's a polymer), you don't find these color patterns on real buffalo horns. There are some exceptional white ones, but these are so rare, there are only a handful of exceptional bows that I've ever seen. One in the Met and the other in the Topkapi palace. The bindings near the grip and mid-limb are odd. Never seen something like that before. Doesn't make sense. The floral patterns are authentic, but the placements is wrong. They're taken from 2 bows that I've in my archive somewhere. The tip has a thick horn insert, which is very unusual for a turkish bow. They don't have these. Persian and Indian bows often come like that, but the inserts are small (heavier than wood) and they always have sinew binding below the nock and don't reach down far. String bridges are sometimes featured on more extreme bows or hybrid forms, but they don't look like this. They're round and either made of horn or leather. It is really strange that they don't show the side profile of the bow, or pics of the tips and the back. Somebody payed 4.762€ for this fake. Not much when it comes to antiquities, but it's most likely not even a real composite bow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What made the treasure fleet so (relatively) safe? It sounds like if it was such a big deal, every other power with a navy would want to take a shot at it. What kept them from succeeding most of the time? Was it just that the spanish protected it with enough strength to make trying to attack it Not Worth The Trouble, or were there other factors? The strategy and mathematics of "big gun" naval warfare (everything from ships of the line up to WW-II battleships) gives an overwhelming advantage to whoever can bring the strongest armada to the fight. Naval battles between big sailing ships typically resulted in ships being disabled either from crew casualties, destroyed sails and rigging, etc. not outright sunk. So in fact, your fleet's strength can be determined based on the number of ships (or more accurately the number of guns) at your disposal. The damage you deal at any time is proportional to the number of guns you have left, while the damage your receive is proportional to the number of guns your enemy has left. The more damage you inflict on your opponent, the less return fire you will receive, and vice versa. The numbers work out so that even a slightly inferior fleet engaging a stronger opponent will be quickly rendered impotent and only dish out minimal amounts of damage in return. The ratio of casualties is approximately inversely proportional the square of the ratio of firepower. So a 3:2 advantage in firepower translates to a 9:4 ratio in casualties. Put it another way, a 270 gun fleet fighting a 180 gun fleet will completely destroy the smaller fleet and only have 80 guns knocked out of action, assuming the fight continues to the bitter end, which they normally do not. What's the significance? Big fleets like the treasure armada are much safer than their numbers suggest from first glance, and serve as a deterrent from any upstart little admiral wanting to have a go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:The strategy and mathematics of "big gun" naval warfare (everything from ships of the line up to WW-II battleships) gives an overwhelming advantage to whoever can bring the strongest armada to the fight. Naval battles Wherever did you hear this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Wherever did you hear this? From being a huge military and war game nerd. Here's a good book if you're interested. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1557503923/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1455229886&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=naval+tactics INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:From being a huge military and war game nerd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:From being a huge military and war game nerd. Here's a good book if you're interested. Yeah, I've read that book. I don't think it says what you think it says.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Part of the big deal of the dreadnought race was that range increased dramatically versus range. When weapons have very short ranges such that units tend to pair off, it's closer to linear than n squared, which is basically the limit as the ratio of range to speed increases. If fights aren't between enemies that can trivially fire on any given enemy unit at any time, then the assumptions of the n squared law fall apart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Part of the big deal of the dreadnought race was that range increased dramatically versus range. When weapons have very short ranges such that units tend to pair off, it's closer to linear than n squared, which is basically the limit as the ratio of range to speed increases. If fights aren't between enemies that can trivially fire on any given enemy unit at any time, then the assumptions of the n squared law fall apart. That's true in theory, yes, but war isn't answerable to a set of equations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Can someone explain how home ownership in cities worked in your time period/region of expertise? Who owned the buildings? Was there a system of leasing property?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:That's true in theory, yes, but war isn't answerable to a set of equations. Oh yes. What I'm saying is that before the early 1900s what he's saying is a misapplication of the theoretical approximation in a way that leads to a very different outcome for something like a fleet fight, even if that's the frictionless surface in a vacuum with perfect comms version of naval fighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
So if I've been learning Italian-style fencing and I'm fighting with a guy who knows Destrezza, what the gently caress do I do when he just plops his big heavy blade on top of mine and constrains me all day long?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
die probably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So if I've been learning Italian-style fencing and I'm fighting with a guy who knows Destrezza, what the gently caress do I do when he just plops his big heavy blade on top of mine and constrains me all day long? But I don't actually do rapier so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Kick him in the nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So if I've been learning Italian-style fencing and I'm fighting with a guy who knows Destrezza, what the gently caress do I do when he just plops his big heavy blade on top of mine and constrains me all day long? Learn some real fencing, like the stuff that the guy does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So if I've been learning Italian-style fencing and I'm fighting with a guy who knows Destrezza, what the gently caress do I do when he just plops his big heavy blade on top of mine and constrains me all day long?  Oddly enough, this is not just a joke but also possibly the historically true answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So if I've been learning Italian-style fencing and I'm fighting with a guy who knows Destrezza, what the gently caress do I do when he just plops his big heavy blade on top of mine and constrains me all day long? Switch the blade to your dominant hand! Also, try to see if one of his hands has six fingers
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
