Weka posted:

Plenty of unknighted medieval soldiers wore full plate.

FishFood posted:

It should be noted that Roman plate armor was not used for a particularly long time, only a century or two, and was used along with with mail and scale rather than replacing it. It is of very different quality than later plate, even the relatively cheap munitions plate, and may have even been adopted because it was cheaper to produce rather than it offering any kind of advantage over mail.

Mail is the big game-changing armor technology of the Hellenistic and Roman eras, being first invented by the Celts and then spreading to the Greeks and Romans who adopted it wholesale. It uses a much more plentiful metal than bronze breastplates (which remained prestige objects), protects better than a linothorax, is flexible and easy to repair, and is relatively easy to mass produce with slave labor. It was used before the lorica segmentata and stayed in use much, much longer as well.

sullat posted:

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

This is called "wanting it more" and for most unprofessional militaries they don't want it (pitched fighting) at all. They just want to loot people

Tulip posted:

DnD priests are based not around any historical priesthood but on an ad-hoc PVP counterplay to player Vampire that was just shredding other players.

Not a DnD specific problem but I've been losing my mind the last few years about games like Path of Exile and The Witcher where you have like, the chest piece for full plate, a leather hat, chainmail boots, and foppish opera gloves or some poo poo. Partially just on gameplay reasons (I think it's dumb busywork) but also just kind of like...why do they mix and match seemingly random bits of different coverage but not layer over the same location.

Grand Fromage posted:

One of my favorite little tidbits about the recent works trying to demystify the Spartans is pointing out that the primary sources don't actually make any claim that the Spartans had some sort of incredible training system, it's just that the Spartiates trained at all. Still not supersoldiers, but they could like, have an entire formation turn around as a single unit without dissolving into chaos.

Tulip posted:

DnD priests are based not around any historical priesthood but on an ad-hoc PVP counterplay to player Vampire that was just shredding other players.

Fuschia tude posted:

Specifically, it was based on Stoker's Van Helsing, because the player wanted to create a vampire hunter.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

This is called "wanting it more" and for most unprofessional militaries they don't want it (pitched fighting) at all. They just want to loot people

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Training and discipline are important because to fight effectively in war you have to, very simply, defy millions of years of instinct telling you to get the gently caress away from the danger.

Libluini posted:

If this is true, this would be even funnier, considering there were real life priests who rode around in full armor, bashing people's heads in with a mace.

Accidental ontological evolution.

Reminds me a lot of how a lot of the reason Assyrians were so feared was that a lot of things they did to improve was just really basic poo poo other armies didn't do, like "use shovels" or "make sure your farms are covered during autumn, so your entire army doesn't have to rush home from this very important siege"

(the last part was apparently quite a surprise for people in Syria when an Assyrian king came up with the concept of a standing army, as their entire strategy to defend themselves had been "close the city gates and wait until harvest time" )

skasion posted:

Armor is most effective when it covers the entire body. The Romans were aware of this concept but for some reason (maybe relative lack of design skill, or the larger scale of armies?) only considered it practicable for the late heavy cavalryman, the Persian-model clibanarius.

Kylaer posted:

I think a big part is that Roman metallurgy straight up wasn't as good as it was in the late medieval period. Roman production of metal equipment was carried out on an amazing scale, especially for the time, but the quality of their metal simply wasn't that good. If you want to make a gauntlet with individual lobstered fingers, say, you need really good steel or else it'll be too weak/brittle to provide any protection at a weight your soldier can accommodate.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

IIRC from reenactors, the segmentate is easier to wear and less tiring than the hamata. And since the Romans did not use thick padding like gambeson under their mail, my understanding is the segmentata does protect better than mail. But with the Romans, GF already mentioned that they are equipping an army, not an elite corps, so cost was always a factor. However what they made sure to do was make sure as few of their guys died as possible, because they were drat good at patching people up from non-life threatening wounds. So they have excellent protection for their torso with armor of some kind. One of the biggest shields used by rank and file armies to protect the rest of the body, and then a fantastically designed helmet with the Gallica style at the height of the empire. The arms and legs are exposed, but its unlikely that their guys would die from a slash to the arm or shin, and can be patched up and still be a soldier in the next campaign.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

There was a real social distinction between knights and the unknighted landowners that were the majority of men-at-arms. In terms of wealth and function though, I don't think they were that different.

quote:

Another reason that segmentata was phased out was its complexity. It was cheaper to produce than mail, but had lots of little fittings and joints, and required constant dismantling and reassembly for polishing. The whole assembly was also sized for each soldier, and the plates and fittings for each size were particular to each other. It was the sort of armour that only a sprawling military with an active administration could make use of, though tbf that's was very Roman.

Koramei posted:

Bret Devareaux explores this a bunch in of all things a post about Uruk Hai and Rohan, and he asserts pretty strongly that it actually isn't as simple as professional military > non-professional, and there are plenty of contexts (e.g. modern tin pot dictatorships trying to impose "professional military" over tribal ties, and... orcs) where the latter would perform better. Drilling your soldiers Prussian-style to stand unflinchingly is one way to effectively get people to stand and fight, but so is the potential of becoming a social pariah by appearing to be a coward in front of everyone important in your society. Someone else that's read the post can maybe explain it better, but iirc he talks about how the use of discipline in professional militaries is to make up for what would otherwise be their weakness because of a lack of these ties; it's not just a tool that turns people into superhumans, and unprofessional militaries have often been just as effective.

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Segmentata leaves your lower abdomen exposed, where your large intestine is. This is a problem. Additionally, while slashes to the arm don't kill as often as some other wounds, they can cut tendons, sever nerves, all the sorts of things that make someone unable to fight further.

Elissimpark posted:

On this note, I vaguely remember reading something in this thread many years ago about archaeologists examining some battle field and a majority of the skeletons had major leg wounds, so for that period a battle would have been a lot of dudes trying to jab each other in the thighs. Which is an amusing mental image.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Koramei posted:

Bret Devareaux explores this a bunch in of all things a post about Uruk Hai and Rohan, and he asserts pretty strongly that it actually isn't as simple as professional military > non-professional, and there are plenty of contexts (e.g. modern tin pot dictatorships trying to impose "professional military" over tribal ties, and... orcs) where the latter would perform better. Drilling your soldiers Prussian-style to stand unflinchingly is one way to effectively get people to stand and fight, but so is the potential of becoming a social pariah by appearing to be a coward in front of everyone important in your society. Someone else that's read the post can maybe explain it better, but iirc he talks about how the use of discipline in professional militaries is to make up for what would otherwise be their weakness because of a lack of these ties; it's not just a tool that turns people into superhumans, and unprofessional militaries have often been just as effective.

Koramei posted:

Bret Devareaux explores this a bunch in of all things a post about Uruk Hai and Rohan, and he asserts pretty strongly that it actually isn't as simple as professional military > non-professional, and there are plenty of contexts (e.g. modern tin pot dictatorships trying to impose "professional military" over tribal ties, and... orcs) where the latter would perform better. Drilling your soldiers Prussian-style to stand unflinchingly is one way to effectively get people to stand and fight, but so is the potential of becoming a social pariah by appearing to be a coward in front of everyone important in your society. Someone else that's read the post can maybe explain it better, but iirc he talks about how the use of discipline in professional militaries is to make up for what would otherwise be their weakness because of a lack of these ties; it's not just a tool that turns people into superhumans, and unprofessional militaries have often been just as effective.

quote:

Normally, we would expect a professional force, like the Uruks, to handily dispose of a levy force like this. A solid, well-organized and experienced professional force would be far more cohesive and capable of executing more complex tactics; at the same time, the levy force likely knows this, which may intimidate them and damage their morale. But there are a few very important weights on the scales. The first – that the Uruks are not a well organized or experienced professional force – we have already discussed. Like many armies even today, the Uruks have all of the trappings of a professional force with none of the reality of it, and perform about as one would expect. But why do the Rohirrim – especially the select and general levies – perform so well? This is the other part of the equation.

The key is cohesion – especially socially derived cohesion. We’ve discussed this concept here before (and will do so again) because it is so important for understanding why some militaries – especially pre-modern armies that engage in shock combat – perform so much better than you would expect given their relative levels of numbers, skill, training or equipment. Cohesion is a blanket term for the psychological forces which hold soldiers in the line under the stress of combat. These are often very different from the motivations that bring a soldier to the field (if you want a good example of how these motivations can differ, check out J. M. McPherson, For Cause & Comrades (1997) on motivation in the American Civil War). The thing that gets you to the battle may not be the thing that holds you in the line when the actual terror of battle takes hold. In particular, while a cause may get you to the battle, by and large it is the fear of shame, either before comrades or close social contacts (friends, family, neighbors), or the desire to protect those same people which keeps soldiers in the line under extreme stress.

Cohesion is so important because morale, not lethality, is typically the deciding factor in pre-modern warfare (and also, as an aside, in modern warfare too). Armies generally do not win by exterminating the enemy, but by making the enemy stop fighting, give up and run away. Consequently, an army that can better resist running away – even if it is less lethal (perhaps because its levymen are less well-trained on their weapons, or less well-armored) – is likely to win, except in cases where the technological or performance shear is really dramatic (and this is not one of those cases; for an example of that kind of very sharp technological/organizational overmatch, see for instance, J.F. Guilmartin, “The Cutting Edge: An Analysis of the Spanish Invasion and Overthrow of the Inca Empire, 1532-1539” in Transatlantic Encounters, eds. K.J. Andrien and R. Adorno (1991)).

quote:

What holds the select and general levy together? Here, I’d argue, we see a similar cohesive principle to that which holds many citizen militia forces – like Greek hoplite armies – together (and which held 8th century Frankish infantry armies together at battles like Tours (732)). The units of the select levy, or the fyrd (and later medieval militias as well) would be drawn up from towns and villages, organized by geographic units. Men would stand in the line next to their neighbors and family, typically under the leadership of the leading men of their towns and villages. Peacetime magistrates, guildmasters, village chiefs and headmen, or just bigger local landowners often serve as the commanders of these, frequently irregularly sized, often impromptu units (if you want to see this kind of social bonding later in the European Middle Ages, check out L. Crombie, Archery and Crossbow Guilds in Medieval Flanders: 1300-1500 (2016); Flanders was one of the relatively few places that continued to produce good infantry in this period and the high degree of social investment obvious in these guilds shows why and how Flanders continued to produce high quality infantry).

Marshaled together under the leadership of their own local leaders and organized along local and regional lines, the social pressure not to let your friends and family down was extremely powerful. In a touching moment from the books that makes it perfectly on to the big screen, Merry sums up the pressure this creates, “as all my friends have gone to the battle, I should be ashamed to stay behind” (RotK, 81). To break from the line, leaving behind your male family members, your friends, your neighbors to face peril alone – few could endure that shame. And perhaps the one thing humans fear more than death is shame. At the same time, there is the positive motivation too – by staying in the line, you are clearly, directly protecting your friends (who may well be standing next to you, in front of you, or behind you). There was also little problem following orders – your guildmaster or local magistrate gave you directives in peacetime, now the same fellow (or a close relative or friend of his) is giving you orders in wartime; following them without complaint seems natural and right. It is an extension of the peacetime hierarchy, so it does not require the creation of an entirely new, parallel wartime hierarchy

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

One of the things here is that the shield is good at protecting the arms, which are otherwise extremely vulnerable and good targets for the sword. Stephen Hand goes into this in depth in the collections SPADA and SPADA 2, as well as the interpretation of the I.33 manuscript he did with Paul Wagner, Medieval Sword and Shield. The presence of a shield doesn't make armour on the arms absolutely unnecessary but it certainly helps.

The cruciform sword -> christianity idea is really a retroactive projection. As woodrowskillson points out, there's plenty of non-christian cultures that use cruciform hilts, but I also want to point out that the idea of the middle ages as the apex of christian symbolism is uh certainly a take.

Even in the early medieval period, Roman metallurgy in ferrous metals was just not as good.

Segmentata leaves your lower abdomen exposed, where your large intestine is. This is a problem. Additionally, while slashes to the arm don't kill as often as some other wounds, they can cut tendons, sever nerves, all the sorts of things that make someone unable to fight further.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

its plausible and simple enough that id be surprised if no one ever tried it, but i have no idea if there are records of it.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

its plausible and simple enough that id be surprised if no one ever tried it, but i have no idea if there are records of it.

Kylaer posted:

Wouldn't this combine with the tendency of formations to shift towards the coverage of their partner's shield result in the formation splitting? So the right-handed majority would shift right and the smaller number of left-handed columns would shift left, and leave a gap?

Also as I recall, the Theban tactic that was considered revolutionary was "Let's put our best soldiers at the left end of the line instead of the dregs of our army," so I'm guessing that this area wasn't already assigned to left-handed soldiers.

Arglebargle III posted:

quote:

Sept 17 (Reuters) - An analysis of ancient DNA is transforming the understanding of the genetic ancestry of Japan's modern-day population, identifying a crucial contribution from people who arrived about 1,700 years ago and helped revolutionize Japanese culture.

Research published on Friday showed that the people of Japan bear genetic signatures from three ancient populations rather than just two as previously thought - a more complex ancestry for the archipelago nation of roughly 125 million.

The researchers analyzed genetic information from 17 ancient Japanese people - DNA extracted from the bones of 12 specifically for this study and five done previously - and compared it to genomic data for modern Japanese people.

Previously documented genetic contributions were confirmed from two ancient groups. The first was Japan's indigenous culture of hunter-gatherers dating to roughly 15,000 years ago, the start of what is called the Jomon period. The second was a population of Northeast Asian origins who arrived at about 900 BC, bringing wet-rice farming during the subsequent Yayoi period.

Modern Japanese possess approximately 13% and 16% genetic ancestry from those two groups, respectively, the researchers determined.

But 71% of their ancestry was found to come from a third ancient population with East Asian origins that arrived at roughly 300 AD to launch what is called the Kofun period, bringing various cultural advances and developing centralized leadership. These migrants appear to have had ancestry mainly resembling the Han people who make up most of China's population.

"We are very excited about our findings on the tripartite structure of Japanese populations. This finding is significant in terms of rewriting the origins of modern Japanese by taking advantage of the power of ancient genomics," said geneticist Shigeki Nakagome of Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, co-leader of the study published in the journal Science Advances.

Grevling posted:

This is from about a month ago but I've recently been thinking about Japanese prehistory. I know there's at least one guy who knows a lot about it so I thought I'd ask, what sort of implications if any does this have against what's currently thought about how the Japanese came to Japan? From what I can tell it's been pretty established that most of the immigration that brought rice farming and the Japanese language to Japan came from Korea. This doesn't necessarily contradict that, or does it?

Grevling posted:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/study-rewrites-understanding-modern-japans-genetic-ancestry-2021-09-17/

This is from about a month ago but I've recently been thinking about Japanese prehistory. I know there's at least one guy who knows a lot about it so I thought I'd ask, what sort of implications if any does this have against what's currently thought about how the Japanese came to Japan? From what I can tell it's been pretty established that most of the immigration that brought rice farming and the Japanese language to Japan came from Korea. This doesn't necessarily contradict that, or does it?

Tree Bucket posted:

I'd be interested to work out how long people can actually fight, before gunpowder. I mean, one soccer match generally has me pretty wiped out; on the one hand I'm terribly unfit, but on the other hand, I'm not wearing 20kg of armour, I'm unwounded, and I haven't had to march to the field beforehand. Battles might have gone on all day, but how much of that would an individual be fighting for?

Grevling posted:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/study-rewrites-understanding-modern-japans-genetic-ancestry-2021-09-17/

This is from about a month ago but I've recently been thinking about Japanese prehistory. I know there's at least one guy who knows a lot about it so I thought I'd ask, what sort of implications if any does this have against what's currently thought about how the Japanese came to Japan? From what I can tell it's been pretty established that most of the immigration that brought rice farming and the Japanese language to Japan came from Korea. This doesn't necessarily contradict that, or does it?

Gaius Marius posted:

. I think Modern's Vastly underestimate the amount of exhaustion that is imposed upon the body doing such strenuous activity as fighting.

Bar Ran Dun posted:

It depends... I think soldiers, serious athletes, serious backpackers, etc probably understand it. I mean when you max out anaerobic and hit that lactic threshold and your muscles don’t want move any more but you have to keep them moving, plenty of people get that. When you eat 10,000+ calories a day but are doing an intense aerobic activity for so long you are losing 1+ pounds a day sustained for over a month, people still do that level of activity.

Tree Bucket posted:

Out of curiosity, is it possible to sustain that kind of activity after suffering any kind of wound? Like, if you're bleeding, does your body just say "nope"?