|
What the heck was the deal with jousting? Knights are heavy shock cavalry. You don't counter a cavalry charge with another cavalry charge, do you?
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:What the heck was the deal with jousting? "Knights" weren't just heavy shock cavalry. They could be found fighting on foot all the time. And sure, you can countercharge a group of enemy cavalry. Why would you think cavalry can't fight cavalry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Given what a lovely piece of work the Nambu was, whoever asked for a Nambu-based katana was probably upgrading in terms of battlefield lethality. That is a type 14 nambu which was pretty alright. Solid design. Nothing to write home about but nothing to really bitch about either. The type 94 was the exposed sear gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:13
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:What the heck was the deal with jousting? Fighting with proficiently with a lance in heavy armour from horseback is extremely difficult, like many other difficult military activities there's a sport form of it, which acquired a life of its own. Its skills are not specific to fighting other cavalrymen, but it's certainly possible to counter-charge cavalry with cavalry.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Half the fun of being a cavalryman is having a pointless fight with the enemy's cavalry and then looting their camp while the infantry does the actual battle. - Prince Rupert of the Rhein
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Half the fun of being a cavalryman is having a pointless fight with the enemy's cavalry and then looting their camp while the infantry does the actual battle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:pointless? you get to look really cool That's a fair point. Bonus of being cavalry: you get to loot your own camp too, occasionally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:That's a fair point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
the best part of being a cavalryman or a member of a tank crew is that you can carry more loot
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That is a type 14 nambu which was pretty alright. Solid design. Nothing to write home about but nothing to really bitch about either. The type 94 was the exposed sear gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Imagine what knights/cavalrymen would have tried to loot if they had the carrying capacity of a tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Why did a lot of early Medieval leaders get weird, frequently insulting, taglines? Louis the Stutterer, Charles the Fat, Ivar the Boneless, Aethelred the Unready, etc. Also, when/why did those kind of taglines stop appearing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Why did a lot of early Medieval leaders get weird, frequently insulting, taglines? Louis the Stutterer, Charles the Fat, Ivar the Boneless, Aethelred the Unready, etc. Also, when/why did those kind of taglines stop appearing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process see also pepin the short edit: lol http://mentalfloss.com/article/58623/60-historys-strangest-royal-epithets edit 2: they include Joan the Lame but not Joan the Mad (Joanna La Loca)? shaking my head HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:for the first three names: according to norbert elias, western europeans of the pre-early-modern era were a lot more comfortable with physical imperfection, pain, disability, and sexual frankness than we are. see also people who have the epithet "the bastard," sometimes they'll give themselves that. Oh that's really interesting. I always wonder how they'd interpret our worldview. I feel like, to us, referring to someone's negative physical qualities is considered super unnecessarily mean but referring to their negative moral qualities isn't that bad. or at least it's not grounds for instant violent confrontation like it would be to some past folks. "ERIK THE PRIEST-HATER" would also be a tight name for a black metal guitarist
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
For Ivar the Boneless no one is really sure what exactly it refers to. One theory is that he had some sort of disability like brittle bone disease or deformed legs that prevented him from walking. Other theories include him being really flexible and limber, that the name is comparing him to a snake, or that it is a ironic nickname of some sort. Yet another theory is that he was impotent and the bone in question is his dilz. Of course in the Sagas he literally has no bones because of a curse but those weren't written until centuries after he supposedly lived so they are basically just historical fiction loosely based on actual events and people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:How exactly are the Crusades seen differently by scholars as opposed to popular opinion? This interview goes some way to answering your question, as does the book it's about! I think it's important to note there's no singular received history of the Crusades. The most popular has probably been Stephen Runciman's very bad books, which present an overwhelmingly negative portrait of the Crusades and their participants, so most scholarship will be seeking to correct that. However there is also a strong current of Crusade apologia, either from the Catholic perspective of trying to justify the Crusades within the Church's history or from the less-religious perspective that usually sees the crusaders as defenders of Western culture and Virtue against the dangerous and encroaching Orient. Both are dumb though the latter is way more dangerous and prone to stoking Islamophobia etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:Oh that's really interesting. I always wonder how they'd interpret our worldview. I feel like, to us, referring to someone's negative physical qualities is considered super unnecessarily mean but referring to their negative moral qualities isn't that bad. or at least it's not grounds for instant violent confrontation like it would be to some past folks. "ERIK THE PRIEST-HATER" would also be a tight name for a black metal guitarist On the flipside if you introduced medieval/early modern people to twitter they would be recreating A Trip to Temecula every 30 seconds as they were forced to defend their honour from internet trolls
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This interview goes some way to answering your question, as does the book it's about! I think it's important to note there's no singular received history of the Crusades. The most popular has probably been Stephen Runciman's very bad books, which present an overwhelmingly negative portrait of the Crusades and their participants, so most scholarship will be seeking to correct that. However there is also a strong current of Crusade apologia, either from the Catholic perspective of trying to justify the Crusades within the Church's history or from the less-religious perspective that usually sees the crusaders as defenders of Western culture and Virtue against the dangerous and encroaching Orient. Both are dumb though the latter is way more dangerous and prone to stoking Islamophobia etc. What is Alfred Andrea's take on the Fourth Crusade, if you don't mind me asking? He suggests that he has one but doesn't really substantiate too much on the page. My personal view on it is pretty influenced by the sort of "dramatic irony" narrative that the interview calls out, and perhaps early exposure to the ideas of Dread Runciman. Would appreciate some solid analysis on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:What is Alfred Andrea's take on the Fourth Crusade, if you don't mind me asking? He suggests that he has one but doesn't really substantiate too much on the page. No idea dude. I only really know about the 1st and 3rd crusades (and even then my knowledge is limited), though I've also checked out Joinville. quote:My personal view on it is pretty influenced by the sort of "dramatic irony" narrative that the interview calls out, and perhaps early exposure to the ideas of Dread Runciman. Would appreciate some solid analysis on the matter. So I actually agree with the position that the Venetians were interested in diverting the crusade. At the very least the attack on Zara is telling. As to whether they intended to sack Constantinople from the get-go, however, I don't know enough to say for sure. I certainly think the offer by Alexios IV made the concept a lot easier for the Crusaders to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:No idea dude. I only really know about the 1st and 3rd crusades (and even then my knowledge is limited), though I've also checked out Joinville. I'd lean much more to a case of one thing leading to another than that ever being the original plan. But being in hock to Venice from the get go made it very unlikely that they'd actually have a straightforward trip to the holy land. Nobody rides for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I'd lean much more to a case of one thing leading to another than that ever being the original plan. But being in hock to Venice from the get go made it very unlikely that they'd actually have a straightforward trip to the holy land. Nobody rides for free. Yeah I essentially agree. also when did people start saying "in hock"? I'd never heard the phrase before and today I heard it twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:also when did people start saying "in hock"? I'd never heard the phrase before and today I heard it twice. Occasionally? The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon is a fun thing (more fun when it's with something truly weird like Tom of Finland's  art).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Yeah I essentially agree. [very nasal voice] IN HOCK is an American English colloquialism dating from at least the early 19th century it derives from Dutch in similar fashion to terms like BOSS or SANTA CLAUS from the Dutch hok meaning cage or pigsty, an apparent IRONIC REFERENCE to debtors' prison you are "in hock" when you have run out of money, you are in debt, and you have begun to sell your worldly possessions to pawnbrokers just to survive
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:for the first three names: according to norbert elias, western europeans of the pre-early-modern era were a lot more comfortable with physical imperfection, pain, disability, and sexual frankness than we are. see also people who have the epithet "the bastard," sometimes they'll give themselves that. Thanks for the explanation, that's really interesting! That makes me wonder, though: what sort of things would those people have found insulting that maybe we wouldn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Thanks for the explanation, that's really interesting! That makes me wonder, though: what sort of things would those people have found insulting that maybe we wouldn't? Usual caveat of long time period and large place, but questions of honor is the big one that springs to mind. Suppose that carries into the early modern and (early) modern as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Usual caveat of long time period and large place, but questions of honor is the big one that springs to mind. Suppose that carries into the early modern and (early) modern as well. also, depending on what's going on in your society at the time, drawing attention to religious differences or political conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Being king Jeb the Fat, baron Dwayne the Cripple, or hetman Bob the Disfigured is all fine and good because that's just describing the way you are but something implying you were a coward or liar or a heretic or whatever would be more insulting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Charles the Bad was the best moniker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Occasionally? The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon is a fun thing (more fun when it's with something truly weird like Tom of Finland's I reckon some media figure used it and everybody is following their lead because it sounds good (tho imo it sounds bad) Pontius Pilate posted:Usual caveat of long time period and large place, but questions of honor is the big one that springs to mind. Suppose that carries into the early modern and (early) modern as well. Idk man, calling someone a cheat or a hick or a cuck all seem like honor-based insults to me, we just react less violently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I reckon some media figure used it and everybody is following their lead because it sounds good (tho imo it sounds bad) Going to attribute the greatly reduced incidence of violent reactions to the fact that we have yet to perfect internet-delivered tele-beat-downs, whereas, historically, all insults were delivered within striking range. Particularly in populations with exceedingly low rates of literacy. If you shouted them real loud, you'd at least be out to projectile-weapon range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
CleverHans posted:Going to attribute the greatly reduced incidence of violent reactions to the fact that we have yet to perfect internet-delivered tele-beat-downs, whereas, historically, all insults were delivered within striking range. Particularly in populations with exceedingly low rates of literacy. If you shouted them real loud, you'd at least be out to projectile-weapon range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:24
|
|
HEY GAL posted:in some societies they may not be reduced; how many police reports have you seen where one person beats another's rear end for something that's objectively speaking dumb as hell See also; 'honour killing'. In societies where women are usually kept socially isolate the internet can help them escape and therefore add fuel to a fire, at times.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Idk man, calling someone a cheat or a hick or a cuck all seem like honor-based insults to me, we just react less violently. Niklas Ericsson says it's because the modern man believes in internal honor and not external honor. Internal honor is far harder to damage with insults and slander.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Niklas Ericsson says it's because the modern man believes in internal honor and not external honor. Internal honor is far harder to damage with insults and slander. Hmmm this actually sounds very interesting!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Hmmm this actually sounds very interesting! I wonder how you would do it, follow a group of young americans around and tally the fistfights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:There is no way, unfortunately, to test whether the insults that get modern Americans most het up are insults that reflect things that speak to your inner character while still being visible from the outside. "You're stupid" immediately came to mind--that's inside you but everyone can see it, and therefore comment on it. you could watch youtube videos
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
So how accurate was the combat in "The Last Kingdom" on Netflix? They showed that shield walls with swords were very effective, and that ultimately not a whole lot of people died during a battle (just a few who got stabbed through the wall). Is that pretty much accurate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
turn it up TURN ME ON posted:So how accurate was the combat in "The Last Kingdom" on Netflix? They showed that shield walls with swords were very effective, and that ultimately not a whole lot of people died during a battle (just a few who got stabbed through the wall). Is that pretty much accurate? No idea but thank you for letting me know it's on Netflix now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
There will be an Aquinas post when my headache fades later this week or early next.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:05
|
|