|
getting killed by a cassowary is a very honourable death
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Triskelli posted:How to Invent Everything routinely brought up giant wombats as an ideal candidate for domestication and companionship Snowglobe of Doom posted:While I was looking up stuff for the "Weird/ugly prehistoric creatures" thread in PYF I saw that there used to be massive prehistoric capybaras, some of them weighing as much as a ton:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:One killed a dude in Florida just a couple of years ago. It's the only recorded case in over 80 years and the victim was over 70 years old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
I would love to see a world where giant sloths get domesticated just to save them from extinction, but I'm not sure they'd be much good for anything you'd want a domesticated animal for. Like they were probably way more active than current-day tree sloths, but still probably not great for hauling loads or pulling stuff or riding. And there's no real way to know what they would've tasted like, but apparently current tree sloths aren't good eatin'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:If I die by a bird I’d be so embarrassed that I would prefer it be reported I died from an impacted bowel movement. What's so embarrassing about being killed by a dinosaur?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
The dinosaur could get you when you're hiding in the toilet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
sullat posted:What's so embarrassing about being killed by a dinosaur? More people die in a year by eating spoiled bird meat than ever by birds themselves. Dinosaurs just ain’t what they use to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:The dinosaur could get you when you're hiding in the toilet. Clever girl.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Dinosaurs are trash. They couldn't even win a fight against a rock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Dinosaurs are trash. They couldn't even win a fight against a rock. It was a big rock!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Dinosaurs are
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
Rock status: obliterated by the earth into worthless fragments of dust, literally does not exist anymore except as residue in a giant hole Dinosaur status: live everywhere in feather coats Wrap it up rockailures
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:If I die by a bird I’d be so embarrassed that I would prefer it be reported I died from an impacted bowel movement. Emubarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:How to Invent Everything routinely brought up giant wombats as an ideal candidate for domestication and companionship I neither want to pick up this things poop or have neighbours who refuse to do so
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I neither want to pick up this things poop or have neighbours who refuse to do so They poop square poops. You can stack them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:They poop square poops. You can stack them. Probably not, common wombats poop cubes but the other species don't. We don't have anything to suggest diprotodon would have pooped in cubes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
It would be cool to have a pet bricklayer
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:It would be cool to have a pet bricklayer Your spouse gets a great deal on building your new family home, then you visit the finished product. "Honey, the bricks... it's... it's all poop" OTOH perhaps this alt timeline means millenials are free from the rent economy, and find the literal brick shithouses the better choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Your spouse gets a great deal on building your new family home, then you visit the finished product. "Honey, the bricks... it's... it's all poop" It's a poo poo-brick house, not a brick poo poo-house. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:It's a poo poo-brick house, not a brick poo poo-house. 🎶poo poo a brick house🎶
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
How did the sandals worn by Roman soldiers in say the reign of Augustus differ from those worn by ordinary citizens? Was there a "standard" style of footwear for the average inhabitant of Rome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
I don't have any personal knowledge of the subject, but a quick jaunt through jstor brought up a neat overview: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43044126 edit: more perusing found a more complete look https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2868189/view shirunei fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:How did the sandals worn by Roman soldiers in say the reign of Augustus differ from those worn by ordinary citizens? In Diocletian's edict on prices, he mentions caligae footwear for civilians that is largely similar but does not include hobnails (the iron cleats that were signature parts of the Roman military boot). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_on_Maximum_Prices https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligae
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:One of the main forms of attack was ramming into the side of the ship. Xerxes lost a bunch to a storm prior to Salamis. Thucydides explicitly mentions them sinking e.g. in the defeat of the Athenian fleet at Syracuse. Triremes sank. i read some study by us army about carrying capacity, and weight on legs seem more heavier and they tire out the carriers faster, so it seems natural that earlier soldiers would have avoided it too on marches
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 10:33
|
|
|
Seems like a logical chausses
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 14:20
|
|
|
I am greaved by that terrible pun. Anyway- roman and greek swords. They didn't seem to have much of a cross guard on the hilt- why is that? I would've thought protection of the sword hand would be a pretty high priority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
There's reasons commonly presented (use with shields etc), but I'm going to slide straight past to an argument I came up with in the pub once: The trend for more comprehensive hand protection in later european swords is from the prominent cruciform hilt as a favored ritualistic feature in christian cultures - leading to those societies developing it as protection over handstop. It's really not very common elsewhere, most people seem to have considered at most a small disc guard sufficient before the modern era spread complex hilts like sabre guards everywhere. No I didn't find any evidence for this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 10:17
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:There's reasons commonly presented (use with shields etc), but I'm going to slide straight past to an argument I came up with in the pub once: I like this. See also castle turrets, moats, various armor features etc etc. The modern equivalent is the powerpoint soldiers who are more kitted out than the special forces guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 10:49
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:The trend for more comprehensive hand protection in later european swords is from the prominent cruciform hilt as a favored ritualistic feature in christian cultures - No, it's because having a sword slide down your sword and chop off your fingers is bad. Here's a Greek sword with a guard over the fingers which predates Christianity: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:I am greaved by that terrible pun. The short answer is shields. Greek and Roman swords were always used in conjunction with large shields. A legionary is not parrying with his sword, he uses the huge scutum to protect him and only uses his sword offensively. They still have guards, but their purpose is to keep the users hand from sliding up onto the blade, or the sword from slipping out of ones grip. Same as with "viking" era swords, as they were also used with shields.  But then there is also the Xiphos, which was used interchangeably based on location and time as the Kopis Cessna linked, which has a crossguard, albeit smaller than on medieval swords.  Migration (viking) period swords evolved from the Roman Spatha and continued to have minimal hand protection until the medieval period where you start seeing arming swords with crossguards become more common. And then as swords become more and more used in either civillian life or on post gunpowder battlefields without shields, more and more hand protection evolves from like the 1400s onward where you see knucklebows, nagles on messers, then the complex hilts on rapiers, and then the various types of guards used on military sabres and whatnot in the 17-1800s. this is of course a massive and gross oversimplification of a process that took a thousand years and is complicated as gently caress. To further gently caress up the Christianity theory, here is a Turkish Shamshir with a cross hilt  and a Sudanese Kaskara  And the Han Chinese in like 200 BC already had steel swords with complex hilts  
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Han dynasty invented Christianity got it
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Benagain posted:Han dynasty invented Christianity got it But the Europeans were the first to use it for warfare!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Benagain posted:Han dynasty invented Christianity got it Journey to the West sequel
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
I do think some later longsword designs did purposefully lean into the cruciform aspect, but that eventually turned into its own weird thing where the sword was designed to be used with a fighting style that involved the sword being the only thing in the wielder's hands and also that the wielder be entirely armored.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I do think some later longsword designs did purposefully lean into the cruciform aspect, but that eventually turned into its own weird thing where the sword was designed to be used with a fighting style that involved the sword being the only thing in the wielder's hands and also that the wielder be entirely armored. for sure, the swiss even started putting complex hilts on longswords 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I do think some later longsword designs did purposefully lean into the cruciform aspect, but that eventually turned into its own weird thing where the sword was designed to be used with a fighting style that involved the sword being the only thing in the wielder's hands and also that the wielder be entirely armored. Well, the sword being the only thing in the wielder's hands and the wielder being entirely armored are related because a lot of hits don't do real damage to someone in full plate so a shield is less necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Well, the sword being the only thing in the wielder's hands and the wielder being entirely armored are related because a lot of hits don't do real damage to someone in full plate so a shield is less necessary. A lot of games like D&D (we can probably blame D&D for among other things popularising this) mess this up because traditionally you had lots of armour or a bigass shield, not both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Also the media representation of medieval knights and heavily kitted roman legionnaires, which probaby inspired early DND in turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 07:53
|
|
|
I'd say that if you don't go digging into the real  content, the perception of wanting a shield and armor is totally natural and reasonable. Some defense is good, more defense is better - the universal image of the Roman legionary has armor and a big shield, after all. I'd guess very few people understand just how good late medieval armor was at protecting its wearer, and they can't really be blamed for that. And shields stayed a thing during jousting even when full plate was widely adopted, and there are a lot of depictions of that in popular culture. That Swiss longsword is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
I always wore ring mail, a buckler and wielded a bastard sword as a fighter. Now I mostly wear jeans and a henley tee
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 14:10
|
|