|
Also keeps the Turks away from the Schlossberg!
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
It's also just 2 hours away from where I live.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I heard you like armor and stuff. Cool!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I heard you like armor and stuff. Where is this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Landeszeughaus Graz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Apologies if this is the wrong place for such a question but I was hoping to ask if there was any good sites or general resources that covered Coat of Arms and what the various aspects of them mean. I apologise too if this is complicated or not too simple but I just wondered for a good place to start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Apologies if this is the wrong place for such a question but I was hoping to ask if there was any good sites or general resources that covered Coat of Arms and what the various aspects of them mean. I apologise too if this is complicated or not too simple but I just wondered for a good place to start. You mean something like this? http://www.familytreesandcrests.com/heraldry-symbols.htm Not sure of the quality of the site. Other things are there are regional variations, and that heraldry could be very arbitrary and a lot of medieval records regarding coats of arms claim things that are outright impossible, for instance one medieval court tried arbitrating a dispute between knights because their heraldry was too similar... they ruled one knight's family held their coat of arms since the time of King Arthur (which is impossible, heraldry was new in the 12th century) and the other knight bore theirs from slightly later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Ottoman Sipahis in the Stibbert Museum in Florence. Fascinating that there's just this armor on display. These guys were famous for wearing awfully fancy fabric, much like Hegel's subjects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I heard you like armor and stuff. Edit: beaten, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Fascinating that there's just this armor on display. These guys were famous for wearing awfully fancy fabric, much like Hegel's subjects.  Look at this goddamn jacket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
I finally finished "The Last Kingdom" and loved it, a lot. I wrote my undergrad thesis on Alfred and I absolutely loved the books and all of it was just great and if you haven't seen it yet and you read this thread you should go watch it, now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:If there's one thing I could tell the non-specialists about what you and I study, it's that the stereotype in movies and TV shows where everyone wears drab brown clothing is very wrong. Fair point, but what is clothing like for your average dude? Looking at that jacket I'm guessing that's not the sort of thing that is affordable for most of society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I finally finished "The Last Kingdom" and loved it, a lot. I wrote my undergrad thesis on Alfred and I absolutely loved the books and all of it was just great and if you haven't seen it yet and you read this thread you should go watch it, now. Hoooly poo poo, the'yve made those books into a tv series??
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:Hoooly poo poo, the'yve made those books into a tv series?? Yeah, while I'm a big fan of the books, imo the Vikings is a better show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I love Vikings and TLK both; the great thing is that TLK is virtually a sequel to Vikings....Ubba and Ivar the Boneless (Ragnar's sons from Vikings) are characters in TLK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
http://sarakipin.tumblr.com/post/115367421593/lady-knights-and-their-trophies-for-mocca-fest i have never met any cav that look like this but on the other hand i don't know all that many cav, personally Cyrano4747 posted:Fair point, but what is clothing like for your average dude? Looking at that jacket I'm guessing that's not the sort of thing that is affordable for most of society. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Baltimore knife and sword gently caress you for making me look at that, Rodrigo Diaz edit: double wolf paw print pappenheimer http://baltimoreknife.com/rapiers.htm edit 2: i'm feeling better about paying 500 euros plus shipping for my sword now, if gross fuckers like these are charging more for gross fucker poo poo HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hmm, what is he talking ab-- oh ew Their swords are better than your posts, and you force those on us constantly. Edit: why do so many lovely makers put huge grips on their swords? I can understand someone like casiberia doing it because they're on a factory model, but these guys are custom makers. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:why do so many lovely makers put huge grips on their swords? This a thousand times. Nothing makes me more disappointed than the excessive proliferation of long grips on rapier trainers, primarily I believe to cater to groups that require padded gloves, and therefore seemingly need more grip space. So heinously wrong that I find it tough to get motivated to train when there's such a barrier to acquiring decently accurate rapier equipment (especially in the states). Re: Baltimore Knife and Sword, I share all the sentiments expressed here, however I've spoken with their smith's about this, and their aim was never historical accuracy but rather to fill the niche of sports like BOTN (wherein we see the value of big thick hunks of steel for bashing and little else) as per their silly ruleset.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Hey, at least you guys have Darkwood Armory.  Edit: And Arms & Armor! If I was a rapier guy, I'd be so jealous of you 'Murricans. Siivola fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Their swords are better than your posts, and you force those on us constantly. Totally mysterious why you'd need larger sized cloth and tools for the american market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
i just found out you can go here for good pictures of antique swords http://db.historische-waffenkunde.de/ this, incidentally, is what i've heard german speakers call a "Haudegen." I think they'd be used like what English speakers call a "cut and thrust sword."  http://db.historische-waffenkunde.de/5-haudegen,_1__h%C3%A4lfte_17__jh_.htm It's prettier than you'd think at first glance; the more I look at it the more I enjoy that big fat blade underneath that downright rapiery hilt. A sword that grows on you. First half of the 17th century, weapons collection Feste Coburg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Oh, that is absolutely dreamy.  I might have to start liking the 17th century. (Although I'm pretty sure people used similar swords already back in the late 16th.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
i felt like i had to post it, since there's so much bullshit in the PYF thread right now. Not from you. Edit: I posted this in the milhist thread years ago, but have a picture of swords in action:  This is from an anonymous Saxon mercenary's sketchbook, 1631. (Sometimes it seems like literally all the guys i study are amateur artists) I talked about it over beers with a colleague of mine and he thinks it's a rapier on the left (that stance is pretty Italian) and a haudegen on the right. I love that drawing, there's something so chill about it. A little sparring, a little walking on the earthworks arm in arm with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Look at that dog! (And you imagine whoever owned that sketchbook sitting nearby, maybe on a little hill, watching everything. Did they bring a table out, to set their drawing supplies on? For that matter, was it hard to get drawing supplies in camp or on the march?) The whole thing says "sunny weekend afternoon" to me. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I finally finished "The Last Kingdom" and loved it, a lot. I wrote my undergrad thesis on Alfred and I absolutely loved the books and all of it was just great and if you haven't seen it yet and you read this thread you should go watch it, now. Did they change a lot from the novels or something? I never liked them because it seemed to about everything Alfred did was the result of this one original character and then that character bitching about not getting enough respect. Was honestly expecting the author to have some crazy rear end tumblr.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
I'm surprised at the lack of dicks in that picture. According to my knowledge of soldier created art it's usually 99% penises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I'm surprised at the lack of dicks in that picture. According to my knowledge of soldier created art it's usually 99% penises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Did they change a lot from the novels or something? I never liked them because it seemed to about everything Alfred did was the result of this one original character and then that character bitching about not getting enough respect. "Sharpe's Piss-Pot posted:Colonel Archibald Haughty: You, are you in charge of this rabble? Cornwell's been doing this since at least the Sharpe series. Almost literally every protagonist he writes is "Vaguely misanthropic warrior-hero with a heart of gold who gets shat on by his own side on a regular basis." He found a formula that worked and stuck with it. That being said the Saxon series is honestly some of his best work and hews least to his formulas, even if it still does run down the same lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Cornwell's been doing this since at least the Sharpe series. Almost literally every protagonist he writes is "Vaguely misanthropic warrior-hero with a heart of gold who gets shat on by his own side on a regular basis." He found a formula that worked and stuck with it. That being said the Saxon series is honestly some of his best work and hews least to his formulas, even if it still does run down the same lines.  those books owned when i was 14
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i just found out you can go here for good pictures of antique swords Those also get called "side swords" when really it just means "beefier blade then most rapiers." I love how they look, and i wonder how often someone owned both a rapier for civilian life and one of these to carry on the battlefield. I know in england they still switched over to broadswords for military use, since being able to easily just whack someone and lop off a significant portion of their body is pretty handy in war. I know Hey Gal's people used rapiers all the time in war though, since if you can only afford one good sword that's what you got in the 1600's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Those also get called "side swords" when really it just means "beefier blade then most rapiers." I love how they look, and i wonder how often someone owned both a rapier for civilian life and one of these to carry on the battlefield. I know in england they still switched over to broadswords for military use, since being able to easily just whack someone and lop off a significant portion of their body is pretty handy in war. I know Hey Gal's people used rapiers all the time in war though, since if you can only afford one good sword that's what you got in the 1600's. the idea that stout blades are for war and thin blades are for civilians is not at all supported by what i've read, those dudes in PYF notwithstanding
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Which PYF thread are you mad at?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Which PYF thread are you mad at? The correct answer is all of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
meemee thread is good
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i felt like i had to post it, since there's so much bullshit in the PYF thread right now. Err, sorry if I'm contributing to bad info on the internet and I would welcome correction. Since weapons were purpose built for a task I'm pretty sure, if you wanted to, you could draw a line between ones with primarily civilian uses (ones for hunting animals, ones for finishing off wounded animals, swords for judicial decapitations, swords intended for unarmored single combat, even parade/ceremonial pieces) versus swords that have a specific military role on the battlefield (zweihanders, longswords, etc). The sources I've read do draw a distinction between thrusting swords that were designed with unarmored street duels in mind and thrusting swords designed for field use. The most recent place I visited where this distinction came up was here but I'll poke around my books to see if I can drop a better source. The link does mention that sometimes these terms get used without distinction so the whole categorization business is finicky since we're naming things after the fact with so much variety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
hard counter posted:Err, sorry if I'm contributing to bad info on the internet and I would welcome correction. Since weapons were purpose built for a task I'm pretty sure, if you wanted to, you could draw a line between ones with primarily civilian uses (ones for hunting animals, ones for finishing off wounded animals, swords for judicial decapitations, swords intended for unarmored single combat, even parade/ceremonial pieces) versus swords that have a specific military role on the battlefield (zweihanders, longswords, etc). The sources I've read do draw a distinction between thrusting swords that were designed with unarmored street duels in mind and thrusting swords designed for field use. The most recent place I visited where this distinction came up was here but I'll poke around my books to see if I can drop a better source. The link does mention that sometimes these terms get used without distinction so the whole categorization business is finicky since we're naming things after the fact with so much variety. You can also find less obvious distinctions between two handed thrusting swords for civilian or battlefield use. For instance a sword used by a knight in armor on foot is at least marginally different from one unarmed, as they have different purposes. A Knight's sword may be less sharp where the offhand goes, while having a longer grip to facilitate in grappling, as well as a pointier or more wedge like tip to facilitate in thrusting through visors or splitting mail with a thrust. A civilian sword may be less purpose built, have a smaller grip, and a more uniform sharpness along the edges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Cornwell's been doing this since at least the Sharpe series. Almost literally every protagonist he writes is "Vaguely misanthropic warrior-hero with a heart of gold who gets shat on by his own side on a regular basis." He found a formula that worked and stuck with it. That being said the Saxon series is honestly some of his best work and hews least to his formulas, even if it still does run down the same lines. The Sharpe books are good fun light reading, but I had to take a break because I got tired of how every book seems to feature some clumsy romance sideplot, when the only reason I picked up the book was for some fun silly napoleonic war action. I got as far as the one that takes place in Copenhagen, maybe that stops after that one, I'll read them again some day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
hard counter posted:Err, sorry if I'm contributing to bad info on the internet and I would welcome correction. Since weapons were purpose built for a task I'm pretty sure, if you wanted to, you could draw a line between ones with primarily civilian uses (ones for hunting animals, ones for finishing off wounded animals, swords for judicial decapitations, swords intended for unarmored single combat, even parade/ceremonial pieces) versus swords that have a specific military role on the battlefield (zweihanders, longswords, etc). The sources I've read do draw a distinction between thrusting swords that were designed with unarmored street duels in mind and thrusting swords designed for field use. The most recent place I visited where this distinction came up was here but I'll poke around my books to see if I can drop a better source. The link does mention that sometimes these terms get used without distinction so the whole categorization business is finicky since we're naming things after the fact with so much variety. The only place a real sharp distinction might be made, i think, between military and civilian daily carry weapons is (1) weapons designed to be used from horseback or (2) England. I don't know enough about the daily life habits of English people to judge, but I read a secondary source about the English Civil War where some captain was ordering swords for his guys and talking about how they were so unaccustomed to wearing them that they used the drat things to cut brush. Inb4 "that's all an English-made sword is good for lol" Edit: I have not read that article and will take a look at it. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Having zero dog in this fight but just poking, is there any chance of there being a vague favoritism to wide blades if available but not a strong one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:once you discard the weapons with certain specific purposes like boar swords and whatnot, I don't see the distinction being that clear in my period, which is the seventeenth century HRE. There plenty of thin swords around in battlefield paintings; armor gets less and less intensive as the century progresses and there's not a lot of difference between stabbing a guy on the street and stabbing him in a field; and this is a time/place when most civilian Gentile city-dwelling men would have been armed most of the time, so they would show up to a recruitment carrying already. I really do not see the thin sword for civilian use/stout sword for military use distinction. The difference would be hard to glean from a painting since even modest differences in cross section could produce heavier, more resilient blades nor does there need to be a huge size jump anyway. On the extreme end, certain provinces with vibrant street dueling cultures produced the odd rapier almost ridiculously specialized for unarmored combat in that the blade would be thin, long and light to an unhealthy extent for a working metal, almost like the owner was responding to local competitive pressures for speed and reach with what amounts to a gimmick/trick weapon. Resultant fragility wouldn't be a huge issue since you could always expect your opponent to be unarmored and using a similar weapon but it's my understanding these things still had breakage issues. 'Military' thrusting swords have been around longer (contemporary with more heavily armored periods) and emphasized a strong tip for harder use, some of these literally couldn't have an edge because the cross section was so thick that it was nearly an oversized nail. Here's another quick internet source. That being said I could see your soldiers using their dueling rapiers as side arms but dudes intended for a specific battlefield role requiring thrust would want something else I'm almost sure of it. If you want to say there isn't a huge distinction between military and civilian thrusting swords in terms of actual usage (especially in your period where designs could converge a bit due to easing pressures) I can agree since this categorization arbitrary as hell already but it definitely looks like there were different pressures on design that produced observably different blades re: thrusting swords for street dueling and thrusting swords for, say, a charge on the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 08:51
|
|