|
Tell me about trial by combat- are there many records of it, any details of what happened? It didn't get removed from the books in the UK till the 19th century I think, but I'm more interested in the medieval records.
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why did the early modern French nobles put up with their king spending bazillion dollars and making them his domestic servants and dressing as a non-warrior. As well as the earlier civil wars that Heygal alluded to, google the Fronde. They tried, they got dunked on.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
also a bunch of kings of france got murdered
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:As well as the earlier civil wars that Heygal alluded to, google the Fronde. They tried, they got dunked on. How accurate is the Twenty Years After by Alexandre Dumas about the Fronde? 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Tell me about trial by combat- are there many records of it, any details of what happened? It didn't get removed from the books in the UK till the 19th century I think, but I'm more interested in the medieval records. Though I'm sure someone else will come in to talk about the later stuff like Talhoffer, I can tell you of one instance described in detail from the 12th century. I'll post it up later.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:As well as the earlier civil wars that Heygal alluded to, google the Fronde. They tried, they got dunked on. Why did that consolidation of power stick during the 1700's?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why did that consolidation of power stick during the 1700's? Why wouldn't it? I mean, it does in modern states, by and large. You'd need some mechanism or event to weaken the authority of central government again. Unfortunately when this did eventually happen the result shortly after was an even stronger revolutionary government that had a big hate on for the nobility, soooo
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
There is a theory tgat the growing complexity of administration, taxes, and military affairs has a strong centralizing effect.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Though I'm sure someone else will come in to talk about the later stuff like Talhoffer, I can tell you of one instance described in detail from the 12th century. I'll post it up later. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
This book details the last official sanctioned judicial duel 'Trial by Combat' (14th century). Amazing read, though I suspect some amount of embellishment in the actual duel itself. Highly reccomend checking it out. It reads like an action/murder mystery screenplay. http://www.amazon.com/Last-Duel-Scandal-Combat-Medieval/dp/0767914171
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
The Royal Armouries at Leeds put their collections online: https://collections.royalarmouries.org/#/objects Over eight loving thousand swords. Almost ten thousand pieces of armour. Lots of other stuff. This is completely bonkers.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Siivola posted:The Royal Armouries at Leeds put their collections online: https://collections.royalarmouries.org/#/objects Saw this the other day, really exceptional. Granted, after checking it out, it really chaps my rear end that they took back all the B-grade munitions pieces loaned out to the Frasier museum, considering they've got 10k pieces sitting in storage not even being displayed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Siivola posted:The Royal Armouries at Leeds put their collections online: https://collections.royalarmouries.org/#/objects  My favourite: 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Okay so more like "eight loving thousand items tagged with 'sword'", but it's still a motherlode of cool stuff. Also I think that's everyone's favourite.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:
So that's where dark souls got it from.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:So that's where TR got it from.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Does England still have landed knights? Like instead of some rear end in a top hat actor being knighted by the Queen, some guy who has had a manor inherited for a thousand years? Also can the Queen call up knighted actors to fight for her?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
I have a question. How did ship warfare work before the cannon was invented? Was it just mostly ramming/boarding or were other ways they could fight?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:I have a question. How did ship warfare work before the cannon was invented? Was it just mostly ramming/boarding or were other ways they could fight? Ramming, boarding, war machines, flamethrowers, and fireships.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Ramming, boarding, war machines, flamethrowers, and fireships. And depending on if you have a mathematician/engineer in your midst, the occasional parabolic mirror (albeit land-based).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Does England still have landed knights? Like instead of some rear end in a top hat actor being knighted by the Queen, some guy who has had a manor inherited for a thousand years? Knighthood isn't inherited. Baronet is the lowest rank that's inherited. She can ask them to do anything, but they are under no obligation to do it. Only thing that she can do is to revoke their title.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Knighthood isn't inherited. Baronet is the lowest rank that's inherited. She can ask them to do anything, but they are under no obligation to do it. Only thing that she can do is to revoke their title. There were some hereditary knighthoods in Ireland. I think the last title went extinct recently.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:I have a question. How did ship warfare work before the cannon was invented? Was it just mostly ramming/boarding or were other ways they could fight? I'm a total layman so take all of this with a grain of salt, but I've been reading a lot about this lately. Anyone feel free to correct it! A lot of historical books on ancient naval warfare describe naval combat as having "an exchange of missiles" followed by ramming or boarding. After hull improvements made ramming less effective, ram-like "spurs" were sometimes employed -above- the waterline to smash enemy oars instead, reducing their mobility. In the ancient Mediterranean world, galley tactics often involved ramming which could potentially sink ships. The Romans were often (citation needed, whatever) less skillful sailors than their rivals however, and would often try to turn these sea battles into something more closely resembling land battles, preferring hand-to-hand combat when possible. Google image "Roman crovus" for a pretty hilarious example of this; they basically drop a drat bridge onto the enemy ship with a stake-like thing to keep it in place long enough for marines to rush across and get to stabbin'. This apparently tended to destabilize ships too much though and wasn't used for long. Ship-mounted siege weapons like catapults and ballista were very much anti-personnel oriented, focused more on killing guys and terror, not on sinking ships, with the possible exception of Byzantine Greek fire that was launched from siphons. I think I read that urine or sand were sometimes kept close at hand (in barrels, I guess?) to put out fires more easily. Forecastles and sterncastles on ships were a great place to put archers, an elevated position where they could shoot enemies more easily. Crossbows and longbows were really deadly in these situations if you had access to them, though javelins were ok too at shorter range. When it came to the melee, boarding pikes and boarding axes were sometimes used. Long spears, sometimes with hooks, can be good for repelling attackers or just having good range. The specialized axes were better suited for chopping up rigging, ropes, cabin doors, people, etc. There's a tendency for people to fight more desperately during these kinds of battles too since retreat is impossible.  There's a lot of that going on in this picture. There are archers shooting from a castle, boarding pikes on the left, a possible boarding axe on the right, french guys with crossbows, and men-at-arms assaulting the enemy ship. I don't know about the historical accuracy of the picture but it displays a lot of the things I've read about. Of all the fighters depicted, I feel like the archers in the castle are the luckiest. They have cover, an elevated position, and a really deadly ranged weapon. They probably have daggers for stabbing people in the armpits or armor joints at close range too. One important logistical point: naval sieges were pretty uncommon during the galley tactics era since you need access to fresh water for people rowing galleys. Pitched battles at sea were also generally not common until improvements in optics and navigation came into play during the medieval period.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Yeah, it was mostly just 'throw poo poo at them, then board the bastards' and that included for like a century after the cannon came into regular use, since they hadn't quite figured out how to make reloading them quick and not obscenely dangerous under battle conditions (as in, you had to get out of the ship, dangle from a rope, and frantically shove a bundle of explosives down a long metal tube while assholes try to kill you dangerous.) The ship rolls show like, 2/3rds of the total crew of the big dedicated warships were marines rather than sailors. Good read on the subject is The Safeguard of the Sea.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:I have a question. How did ship warfare work before the cannon was invented? Was it just mostly ramming/boarding or were other ways they could fight? The vikings bound their ship together. They also never fought in open sea because that would make it impossible to keep the formation, instead they fought in fjords. When the ships were bound together the flagship was always in the middle to protect it. This was because a viking army would collapse if you killed their leader.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Question re zweihanders and poleaxes: I'm under the impression both were personal and formation weapons for elite soldiers, either mercenaries or regulars. Is there a way to summarize the different roles of the two? I'm aware of zweihanders being used to penetrate pike squares but I'm not sure of anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Pollaxes predate pike squares, they're very much a medieval weapon. It's a weapon purpose-built to gently caress up armoured men-at-arms. And since it's kind of short a weapon, you want to wear a lot of plate yourself so it pretty naturally becomes a rich elite weapon for killing other rich elite dudes. Really big two-handed swords are more of a Renaissance thing. They're supposedly handy for taking on multiple people at once, so they're popular with people like bodyguards. People armed with them were also hired for cool jobs like defending a flag or disrupting pike formations by smacking away incoming points. And they're kind of tricky to fight with, so the two-handed sword became the symbol of a fencing master in certain areas such as Italy and Spain.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Medieval naval warfare: Flóabardagi (Battle of the gulf) was the first, and until WW2, only naval battle to take place in the waters around Iceland.* It took place in 1244 during the Age of Sturlungs, a time of civil war when the chiefdoms had become consolidated in the hands of 6 powerful clans that fought each other for supremacy. Flóabardagi was fought between the followers of Þórður "Kakali"* Sighvatsson of the western Sturlungar clan and Kolbeinn "The Young" Arnórsson of the northern Ásbirningar clan. Þórður had 15 ships and 210 men but Kolbeinn 20 ships and aproxamitely 600 men. The main weapon used in the battle was rocks that the combatants would throw at the other ships along with the occasional piece of burning wood. They also rammed each other. Despite having fewer and smaller boats as well as only half the man of his opponent Þórður managed to hold his own for most of the battle, eventually he was forced to retreat but he had done enough damage to Kolbeinn's fleet for Kolbeinn to be unable to give pursuit and suffered far fewer casualties. The battle was thus considered an uneven tie. Kolbeinn did not appreciate this humilation and once he had gotten his bearings he sailed around the west burning all ships he came across. Þórðurs clan had once reigned supreme in western Iceland but suffered a catastrophic loss in 1238 at the battle of Örlygstaðir where the almost all of the leaders of the Sturlung clan, including Þórður's father and brothers, were killed by an alliance of Kolbeinn and Gissur Þórhallsson of the Haukdælir clan from the south. After the battle Kolbeinn conquered all of the lands owned by the Sturlungs. Meanwhile Þórður was at the court of king Hákon of Norway, along with his uncle the famous poet, historian and Saga writer Snorri Sturlusson. Snorri returned home in 1239, after having fallen out of favor with the king because the king did not want to let him return and Snorri supported a coup attempt against him. Snorri sought reparations for the deaths of his kin but was assassinated by Gissur at the behest of the king. In 1242 Þórður returned home and began to wage a guerilla campaign against Kolbeinn in the west which would eventually culminate in the battle of the gulf which marked a turnaround in the war in favor of the Sturlungs. Then there was a bunch of arson and murder and stuff. *That we know of at least. **Probably "the stammerer".
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Why did so many Knights in the 13th and 14th centuries get into fights with snails?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Why did so many Knights in the 13th and 14th centuries get into fights with snails? Salt was expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
So a while ago I came across a review of "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" and apparently, this is one of the things the reviewer learned while reading the book:quote:Half of the entire population are under the age of 21 so everyone is inexperienced and immature. Imagine a nation being run by a bunch of hormonal teenage boys. People marry at age 14. Many commanders in the Army are still in their teens. Is that quite accurate? I was under the impression that the low life expectancy of the Medieval period had more to do with high child mortality rates than anything else, it being pretty common to live a long natural lifespan if you can avoid that early death. Was I misinformed? For that matter, what WERE medieval views on age? Would someone's forties still be considered middle-aged, for instance?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Is that quite accurate? I was under the impression that the low life expectancy of the Medieval period had more to do with high child mortality rates than anything else, it being pretty common to live a long natural lifespan if you can avoid that early death. Was I misinformed? In general, no, that point strikes me as not very accurate. Life expectancy figures are dragged down by high infant mortality rates as you say, so the raw numbers trend downward. If you lived through infancy life expectancy was much higher than these numbers suggest, so the idea that a large portion of the population would have been in their very early twenties seems off to me. Medieval demographers are surely aware of this problem, so they might have more accurate figures, but I don't know that literature very well, so I couldn't tell you what they say off the top of my head. Also, the idea that people generally got married at a very young age is fairly inaccurate. If I remember correctly, peasants, for example, tended to hold off on marriage until their mid or late twenties. There are certainly anecdotes of marriages being arranged for young adolescents, so I think this contributes to an image of very early marriages, but it's problematic to generalize these anecdotes. Also, If I remember correctly, even in these cases, the actual marriage often occurs years after the initial arrangement. Marriage is, of course, a social and economic arrangement, so the age at which people tended to get married was heavily influenced by regional differences in family structure and inheritance patterns. For example, in places where individuals tended to live with relatives after marriage, the average age of marriage seems to be lower. On the other hand, in places that don't practice partible inheritance, for example, the average age of marriage tended to be higher. In any case, the picture of the Middle Ages as a period in which people generally got married very young is not particularly accurate to the evidence. quote:For that matter, what WERE medieval views on age? Would someone's forties still be considered middle-aged, for instance? A few preliminary thoughts on this as well. One of the most influential texts throughout the Middle Ages was Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, in which he provides categorizations of age groups. According to Isidore, there are six stages of life: Infancy (birth to age 7), boyhood (7 to 14), adolescence (14 to 28), young adulthood (28 to 56), adulthood (56 to 76), and old age (76 to death). Of course, Isidore's influence was of a particularly intellectual register, so we really shouldn't extrapolate his work onto lived experience and ideas about age. On the other side of things, age, like most things, is a culturally determined category and in at least some cases medieval ideas about stages of life had little to do with actual age. In the case of high medieval French aristocrats, for example, Georges Duby has argued that full adulthood depended on certain social markers including ownership of land or the holding of office or title, marriage, and the fathering of children. In this case, those who don't have these are seen as iuventes (youths) irrespective of their actual age. In this case, someone in their forties could still be considered a "youth." Duby cites the example of William Marshal, who was made a knight in his early twenties, but didn't marry until he was about 45, which means (according to Duby at least) that his "youth" lasted for about 15 years. deadking fucked around with this message at 13:26 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Hogge asked me about my bows a few days back, so here's what I'm doing atm. It's a ~hungarian~ bow of the 7-11th century, or more or less losely following Bencsik's guidelines. As you can see it's not completely balanced, but very close to be finished.  It's 2 years old by now and a massive collection of mistakes, patching and reworking but it shoots. Fixing this poo poo was actually quite instructive, and I don't remember anyone else but the master himself doing triangular ears with boneplates. For a very good reason, because gently caress this poo poo. Initially it was meant to the symmetric, but the splices where too short, the glue overheated in the baby bottle warmer and I had to redo them. It's also made of suboptimal materials, but the idea was to do it on the side and see if it's possible. It's 131,5cm ntn along the belly, assymetric by 2,5cm and pulls about 45# at 28", which to my surprise is what I aimed for back then. The ears look a little different than the original plates, but I had to save weight, as the bow is alot lighter than the originals. The bows of last year should be alot better 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Hogge asked me about my bows a few days back, so here's what I'm doing atm. It's a ~hungarian~ bow of the 7-11th century, or more or less losely following Bencsik's guidelines. As you can see it's not completely balanced, but very close to be finished. Always interesting to read about bowmaking. Are you going for a different pull in those other bows? Why is it important to save weight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
while we're doing Kraft Korner, I just finished a small hand axe based on 12th-13th century examples of woodcutting axes from Novgorod. It's pretty handy, a good alternative to a knife for a lot of things. Wrought iron and unknown HC steel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:while we're doing Kraft Korner, I just finished a small hand axe based on 12th-13th century examples of woodcutting axes from Novgorod. It's pretty handy, a good alternative to a knife for a lot of things. Wrought iron and unknown HC steel. Nice! Post more of your stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Nice! Post more of your stuff. No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Only kidding, but i don't have any other pieces really styled on originals, mostly i just forge what I feel like. I should be finishing something cool soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Only kidding, but i don't have any other pieces really styled on originals, mostly i just forge what I feel like. Does it rhyme with 'whyhander?'
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:Does it rhyme with 'whyhander?' Lol no I will never make a sword in my current workshop. Never. Blades that size are too annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:30
|
|